Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PETITIONS

Railways Bill

Mr. Robert Adley: I have the honour to present a petition from more than 300 paid-up members of the Highcliffe branch of the Christchurch and East. Dorset Conservative Association who wish to express their grave concern about the Railways Bill. This is the tip of the iceberg. My political activists are worried that the Government's plans are ill conceived, will damage Britain's railways and will not increase the essential investment on which the railways depend.
The petition says:
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House determine, prior to the passage of legislation, the role expected of the railway system: and that a policy of seeking to divert traffic from road to rail, funded by the public or private sector, be determined in such a manner as to retain an integrated railway system.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Housing

Mr. Charles Hendry: I wish to present a petition which has been signed by 218,617 people from throughout the United Kingdom, organised by the Churches National Housing Coalition. It states:
That the growth and persistence of homelessness and bad housing is a fact, a scandal and a threat to future generations. The human suffering and social division caused make this an issue that each of us must face.
The churches are united in calling for compassion and justice in national housing policies.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will urge the Government to make housing a higher priority by: making 100,000 affordable homes available each year, using both public and private housing, to meet rural and urban housing need; improving choice and quality of housing for all tenants; implementing further measures to tackle homelessness, especially amongst young people; targeting government resources, such as mortgage interest tax relief, to those in greatest housing need.

To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — Licensing (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Phil Gallie: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Today, it is my unenviable—perhaps some would say, regrettable—task to present the Licensing (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill. I carry a great burden, if not an unusual one, because it is, indeed, a rare task. None the less, I feel privileged as a minnow in the shoal of the massed ranks of Tory Members on these green Benches. It is, perhaps, not such a mass as before the 1992 election, but, for Scotland, I am pleased to say that it is an expanded mass. We have almost 20 per cent. more representation than we had prior to the 1992 election.
What is unusual or regrettable about the task to which I refer? Indeed, what is the task? If I do not define it, I shall risk your rebuke, Madam Speaker. The task is to amend the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976. The means is the Licensing (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill 1992. I emphasise 1992, because the Bill is not based on a sudden impulse. It has been around for a while. It was first introduced in December. Since then, it has experienced a tortuous journey through Committee, where it had a thorough analysis. It was fully endorsed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It was, indeed, warmly welcomed.
The Bill was fully debated for a marathon 12 minutes in Committee on 16 February. Until that time, all had gone to plan. Then, in the words of Britain's finest, most revered and most respected poet, Robert Burns, whose birth in Alloway in my constituency some 200 years ago gives cause for a worldwide celebration and ensures a worldwide reputation for my constituency and whose claim to such a position would, I am sure, be endorsed by Opposition Members,
The best laid schemes o' Mice an' Men,
Gang aft agley.
Something went wrong when the Bill was presented for Third Reading at the end of February. An Opposition Member representing a Welsh constituency was heard to object. I suggest that a slight error may have been made, because it seemed more like a cough. It is a reasonable Bill, it is fully accepted by all and there was no real reason for objection. But Mr. Deputy Speaker thought that he heard an objection and, of course, Deputy Speakers are always right. I have no argument with that. The Bill is necessary to the well-being of the Scottish people and the fortunes of all who live in the land beyond Hadrian's wall.
That brings me back to my opening words—unusual, regrettable and rare. The Bill is necessary because of a mistake that was made by the Government and endorsed by a Committee of the House. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that a mistake by a Conservative Government is a rare event. It is an unusual event, certainly since 1979. I offer no comment on pre-1974.
A mistake was made in the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. The Bill amends the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 and the problem is contained in section 23 of that Act, which requires licensing boards, when granting new liquor licences, to witness a certificate to ensure that the


availability of premises to which it refers is valid with respect to planning, building control and hygiene. Applicants must produce a certificate showing that full or outline planning permission has been obtained under section 1 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 and that further planning permission is not required.
As from 25 September 1992, section 51 determinations were replaced by section 90A certificates of lawfulness of proposed use of development, which were introduced by section 42 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. Therein lies the problem that we are dealing with today.
The 1991 Act repealed section 51 of the 1972 Act, but it did not consequently amend section 23(2) of the Licensing (Scotland) Act to refer to section 90A certificates.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: What a scandal.

Mr. Gallie: It sent reverberations shaking through every town hall in Scotland. It sent every licensee who thought that he might wish to change the terms of his licence scurrying to his solicitors to see what dastardly Act had been imposed on them.
The Bill rectifies all those wrongs. Clause 1(1) will amend section 23 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act. Clause 1(2) adds to section 23(2) of the 1976 Act a reference to a certificate under section 90A of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act. It should be noted that the reference to section 51 remains, to ensure that determinations established before 25 September 1992 remain valid. That is very important. Section 90A enables planning authorities to grant certificates of lawful use or development to premises. Clause 2(1) contains the short title and subsection (2) provides that the Bill extends to Scotland only. I thank hon. Members from England and Wales for being present to listen to this essential piece of Scottish legislation.
I said that it is unusual and rare that such amendments are necessary—certainly in Scottish legislation. That reflects credit on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and his energetic, vibrant and meticulous team of Scottish Office Ministers, and there is no one more fitting to represent them today than my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton). It also reflects credit on Scottish Office officials, who draft legislation. I pay particular tribute to them.

Mr. Jenkin: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the detail and thoroughness with which he has approached this short but complex measure, but will he comment on the source of the error, how it arose and who might have been responsible for it?

Mr. Gallie: We are dealing with a complex array of measures, with many pages of documents amending legislation, especially the 1991 Act. It would be incongruous to investigate one minor omission among a mass of legislation. We do not need a witch hunt; we simply need to rectify a wrong, which I seek the blessisng of the House to do today.
I thank the Scottish Office officials for their speedy action in drafting the amendment. I particularly thank

Michael Clancey of the Law Society of Scotland, who has been of much assistance in highlighting and assisting with the problems surrounding the Bill. It would be wrong not to thank the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), who is not here today, and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Muyhill (Mrs. Fyfe) who, like me, has given up a day in her constituency to be here. My constituents in Ayr usually expect my presence on a Friday. I ask all hon. Members in the House today to approve the Bill and to give it their full support.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) on introducing the Bill, and I congratulate the officials concerned in the Scottish Office and anyone else who played a part in correcting an admitted error.
I do not want to prolong discussion of the Bill as our agenda today contains an important Bill that matters a great deal to the people of Scotland—the Carrying of Knives etc. (Scotland) Bill on which, I hope, the hon. Member for Ayr will speak.
The Labour party supports the Bill. We know that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities is happy for it to be introduced. It is a welcome change for a Conservative Member to admit an error. That is a rare event. Confession is good for the soul and I hope that the Government will confess their errors more often.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) on his splendid Bill which helps to put right an anomaly and to rectify the matter. I also thank the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) for her support in the matter.
During the past 90 years, there have been only four major pieces of licensing legislation in Scotland. The Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 arose from the recommendations of the report of the departmental committee on Scottish licensing, chaired by Dr. Christopher Clayson. That forms the main corpus of current law on liquor licensing in Scotland. It was amended in 1990, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr said, by the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act, which introduced the new concept of children's certificates and standardised permitted hours for pub opening during the week and on Sundays.
The current liquor licensing law in Scotland has generally stood the test of time, although, from time to time, proposals are made to improve procedures and we consider them carefully. Problems occasionally arise which, if not remedied by statute, result in lacunas. The Bill aims to remove such a lacuna.
Section 23 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 requires applicants for the grant of a new liquor licence to produce to the licensing board certificates about the suitability of their premises in relation to planning, building control and food hygiene. The applicant has to submit a certificate from the planning authority to the effect that full or outline planning permission has been obtained or that the planning authority has made a determination under section 51 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 that planning permission is not required.
With effect from 25 September 1992, section 51 determinations will be replaced by section 90A certificates of lawfulness of the proposed use or development, introduced by section 42 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. The 1991 Act repealed section 51 of the 1972 Act, but, unfortunately, it did not make any consequential amendment to section 23(2) of the 1976 Act. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr for saying that there is no need for a witch hunt in this connection. Occasionally, even the best officials in Whitehall and Ministers can miss errors. I am glad that my hon. Friend is putting the matter right.
The purpose of the Bill is to amend the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 to take account of the changes introduced by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. The change introduced by that Act concerned what are known as certificates of lawful use or development. That amendment was a single point of detail in a wide-ranging Act. The impact on the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 was inadvertent, so it may be helpful for me to explain some of the underlying issues.
In general terms, the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 was intended to improve the efficiency of the planning system and of the compensation code. It did so in a number of ways, not all of which are directly related, and as a follow-up to the commitments in the environment White Paper "This Common Inheritance" and as a result of recommendations in the 1989 Carnwath report, which focused primarily on the efficiency and effectiveness of the planning enforcement system. It had been the subject of detailed investigation and Mr. Carnwath undertook to carry out a review of that work and to draw up appropriate conclusions and recommendations for change.
I do not intend to detail those recommendations, but I shall highlight some of the general conclusions that Mr. Carnwath reached, as they provide the relevant background to the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. Mr. Carnwath concluded that previous enforcement arrangements were unduly technical and complex and that, as a result, there was considerable confusion about what the law required. He also considered that the previous system did not lend itself to dealing quickly with urgent cases of enforcement. Speed is, of course, necessary in these matters. The processes needed to be simplified. Similarly, the previous arrangements were too cumbersome and protracted for dealing with even the more simple breaches of conditions. The system also lacked teeth, in the sense that the courts appeared to be imposing inadequate penalties, a point which my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr has rightly highlighted on many occasions.
The national guidance provided to local authorities was seen as being ambiguous. In consequence, Mr. Carnwath recommended that we provided for better information and co-operation, that we rationalised and simplified our enforcement notice procedures, that we clarified the powers of the Secretary of State on appeal, that we reduced legal delay in the courts, that we better defined the nature of lawful land use and that we modified the stop notice and enforcement procedures. He recommended that we introduced injunctions and interdicts, that we increased penalties, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr would wish, and that we revised our policy guidelines.
The Planning and Compensation Act 1991 sought to implement many of the recommendations. In so doing, our attempts to provide for a determination of lawful land use

inadvertently clashed with the need to provide certificates of established use under section 23 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976. The precise significance and use of the certificates is inevitably a complex arid technical matter. In general terms, the 1991 Act sought on this point of detail to define the concept of lawfulness in the context of land use and to introduce a better system for certifying the lawfulness of proposed or existing operations, uses or activities on, over and under land. It did so by providing for the new certificates of lawful use or development. The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 provided for certificates of established use or section 51 determinations for which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr realises, planning permission was not required.
Both arrangements were repealed by section 42 of the 1991 Act. The intention was to provide a single coherent mechanism for establishing the planning status of land and to provide a statutory document for certifying the lawfulness of such uses. The benefits of such a revision were greater flexibility, convenience and a less ambiguous statutory arrangement for certifying the lawfulness of land use.
The new procedure provides a single mechanism for establishing the planning status of land, whether for existing use or for proposed development. It provides for the first time a mechanism for obtaining from the planning authority or from the Secretary of State on appeal a statutory document for certifying the lawfulness for planning purposes of existing operation, development or use.
The system contrasts sharply with the previous system under which lawfulness was determined not by reference to a single certificate, but by reference to a number of different conditions. Those conditions are related to particular definitions of development under the 1972 Act, to the nature of exact grants of planning permission and to the date of development. Anomalies could arise under those arrangements. It was, for example, possible for breaches of planning control to become immune from enforcement action. It was thus possible for ambiguities to arise, such as developments that were unlawful, but were immune from any remedies. That anomaly no longer exists.
If a development or activity is immune from enforcement action, it is now also lawful for planning purposes. In that context, certificates of lawful use or development will not preclude the need to examine the underlying issues, but, once they have been examined and a certificate has been issued, remaining ambiguities will be removed as a statutory and, therefore, unambiguous statement of the lawfulness of the land.
A number of other benefits have been conferred by the new certificates. The Act enables anyone to apply to the planning authority for a decision on whether an activity is lawful for planning purposes. The certificates also provide for a detailed statement of such land uses. Once issued, the certificates preclude the need for further detailed work by the applicants or planning authorities in relation to the granting of planning permission. The certificates equate to the granting of planning permission for the designated activity. Clearly, that will have a beneficial effect and will reduce the work for both the developer and the regulator. I stress that the certificates in no way pre-empt the need for careful consideration of the appropriateness of the specific land uses.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr has done a substantial service in introducing the Bill to put right the anomaly. I welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Maryhill and I am glad that the matter can be put behind us and that the Bill will soon be on the statute book. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Local Government (Overseas Assistance) Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1

POWER TO PROVIDE ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE

Mr. Tony Banks: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 16 at end insert—
'(3A) The power in subsection (1) above shall not restrict the use of any other statutory provision under which a local authority may provide information to and may undertake activities with local government and other bodies outside the United Kingdom.'.
The Bill had a constructive Committee stage. It was one of those rare parliamentary occasions when much co-operation and light, instead of heat, was exchanged. I do not think that the Report stage should delay us too much. However, I want further assurances from the Minister and the Bill's promoter, the hon. Member for Broxstowe (Mr. Lester), who is to be congratulated on introducing the Bill and steering it thus far.
Amendment No. 2 ensures that the new power is to be without prejudice to the existing powers. It raises an issue of considerable concern to practitioners in the overseas section of local government and is arguably the most important of the amendments. It would ensure that the creation of the new power—which we all welcome—does not close off the possibility of using other powers of a more general nature which may have been available to local government.
Local authorities have had to be inventive in the past in making use of general or discretionary powers when undertaking overseas assistance. They have also been exceedingly inventive in using those powers for domestic arrangements. They have been innovators and have sought to push forward work that has now gained wide official approval, using powers such as section 137—as amended—and section 142, on the powers to give information, of the Local Government Act 1972. The reason for the Bill is that, in the past, the Audit Commission has been concerned that no distinctive power existed. It rapidly became clear that a gap existed in the law, which the Bill seeks to fill.
It would be unfortunate if existing schemes and activities were disrupted by legal advice to local authorities to the effect that such work should, in future, be undertaken solely under the power contained in the Bill. Local authority lawyers and district auditors have occasionally been forced into a restrictive view of the powers of local government to secure against possible legal challenges. Amendment No. 2 provides the answer to those fears by making it clear in the legislation that the new power should not restrict the use by any authority of any other statutory provision, under which information may be provided to local government or other organisations outside the United Kingdom or activities may be undertaken with them.
It is clear that, in most cases, the authorities will undertake the new activities under the powers contained in the Bill. The amendment essentially concerns existing activities that could potentially be needlessly brought within the consent provision. It would be helpful if the


Minister would explain what the position will be in relation to projects undertaken under the discretionary powers after the Bill's passage. It would also be of assistance if he could state that he will be willing to discuss both that process and the general issue with the local authority associations involved.

Mr. Jim Lester: I welcome the remarks of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and the way in which he opened the debate. Many of us regard him as being beneficial when he is in light mood, rather than creating heat. Today must be a special day for him as I know of his profound interest in whales. I understand from the newspapers that a number of whales trapped in Scapa Flow have been rescued from their fate worse than death. They have now been released into the open sea. I am sure that we all share the pleasure that the hon. Gentleman must feel and admire him for his campaigning on behalf of whales.

Mr. Tony Banks: I wish to associate myself with the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the rescue of the sperm whales in Scotland. In a world in which so much distressing news assails us in the newspapers, that news has brought a bit of light and pleased everyone involved with the plight of whales. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will return to the subject next Friday when I have an Adjournment debate on the resumption of commercial whaling by Norway.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I hope that the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) will not seek to anticipate what will happen next week.

Mr. Lester: I never seek to anticipate anything—it takes me long enough just to get around each 24 hours. I share the feelings of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West and I thought that it was worth raising the subject of the whales as I know of his interest in them.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has handled the Bill for the Opposition. The issue is not one of dogma, but involves the basis of the Bill. We genuinely seek to reassure local authorities that we have no desire to restrict the powers that they may have. The Bill was introduced as we detected that there was a grey area—some authorities regarded themselves as having the power, some authorities were not sure whether they had that power and many authorities felt that they did not have it. The Bill clarifies the position to show that the authorities have a clear power.
Local authorities have been inventive—often, to represent the degree of internationalism within specific local authorities. If people genuinely want to help, they look to see how best they can do so. One reason for drafting the Bill as we have was to give such authorities a clear power. The general authorisation that my hon. Friend the Minister has already undertaken gives the authorities an unfettered power so that no one can breathe over their shoulder other than through the use of the de minimis provision.

Sir Michael Marshall: In Committee I raised some of the anxieties of my local authorities—Arundel district council and West Sussex county council. I am glad to confirm that, in the light of what is perceived as progress on the measure, there is a feeling that those anxieties have been overcome.
I applaud my hon. Friend's work in clearing up these matters and tell him that the number of inquiries that the British Association for Central and Eastern Europe has received from local authorities wanting to pursue active schemes under this measure has greatly increased.

Mr. Lester: I am delighted to hear that. I should like to task my hon. Friend with the responsibility, through the Inter-Parliamentary Union, for spreading news of the Bill and making sure that its consequences are widely appreciated and used.
We have no argument with the local authority associations; indeed, we wish to reassure them. I am assured by the parliamentary draftsmen that the local authorities do not need this provision—there is no legal requirement for it—but if the authority associations can prove, as we have asked them to, that they need further reassurance on any particular matter I am sure that we would be prepared to discuss it with them.
Baroness Flather has undertaken to steer the Bill through the House of Lords. I am delighted about that; she is a very able lady. She came to politics from local government and she understands it. I have no doubt that she will as sympathetic to the Bill's intentions in the Lords as we have all tried to be here.

Mr. Eric Pickles: We have already discussed some of these concerns in Committee. It would be a great tragedy if the Bill took away powers that local authorities currently enjoy. I hope that my hon. Friend will make it absolutely clear that the power in question is not necessary and that there is no possibility of powers being removed from local authorities.

Mr. Lester: Absolutely. We have a reasonably good audience here today, so perhaps I may describe the power that seems to be causing the difficulty. Under section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972, local authorities already have the power to twin with local authorities anywhere in the world. They also have the power to promote the interests of the inhabitants of their areas, which means that they can send delegations from and to major conurbations. But they do not have the power—and they have never had it—to transfer technology or the tremendous range of technical experience that our local authorities have. The know-how funds exist and many European countries are starting to set up a basic local authority fabric. That is the purpose of the know-how funds and it is widely appreciated.
We discovered that the technical aspect was not covered by law, which is why this Bill has been widely considered since it started out. The Bill enables local authorities in Great Britain to provide assistance in respect of matters in which they have skill and experience to bodies—not necessarily local authorities, but bodies preparing to become them. We are talking about bodies outside the United Kingdom carrying on or attempting to carry on the activities of local government.

Lady Olga Maitland: Does my hon. Friend agree that although it is essential that local authorities should be encouraged to develop good trading links and know -how links with towns abroard, we should also bear it in mind that that would be no excuse for junketing or abusing their powers?

Mr. Lester: I think that we dealt with that in Committee. No one wants this beneficial power to be


misused and, besides, junketing is often no more than a matter of judgment on the part of the editor of the local newspaper. I have made international visits over the years; all of them have benefited those in the places that we visited and those who took part in the trips. In some of the towns in which I am trying to encourage local authorities to get involved, the accommodation is hardly five star. We are talking about pioneering conditions which many of us would like improved. So I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that what she describes is the last thing we want. I am sure that the same goes for local authorities.
This is not a very controversial area, but it may still need to be clarified. I am assured that it does not need legal clarification, but I am sure that the Minister, who has rather better legal advice than I have, will shortly give us his opinion. Meanwhile, I have no doubt that we can make further amicable progress with the Bill.

Mr. Matthew Carrington: I do not want to detain the House long discussing a probing amendment which clarifies what is already in the Bill. In as much as it does so, it is welcome. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) for what he said about the interpretation given to him by the parliamentary draftsmen of its effects on the Bill.
I am worried about one aspect of the amendment and I should be grateful if the Minister would deal with it. I regret that I was not on the Standing Committee, but I have followed the Bill's progress carefully. I am worried that the amendment might reverse one of the Bill's principal effects, which is to ensure co-ordination of effort in local authority activities when helping overseas bodies to develop, particularly in eastern Europe. Such co-ordination is vital. If local authorities from this country are to assist nascent democracies in eastern Europe, they should do so as part of a United Kingdom entity. We do not want them to find ways around, or innovative interpretations of, existing statutes which already give them powers. As the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said, they have done that successfully in other areas in the past. If they found ways of operating outside the scope of this Bill they might be able to undertake activities that would conflict with the assistance being offered by local authorities working in conjunction with this Bill, with the approval of the Secretary of State. That approval is the key. It ensures that, for instance, Lambeth borough council cannot rush off and set up a local government structure in some town in Hungary, modelling it on Lambeth itself, with all the attendant corruption.

Mr. Pickles: Does my hon. Friend accept—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman to address me, not his hon. Friend.

Mr. Pickles: I beg your pardon, Madam Deputy Speaker. Does my hon. Friend accept that Lambeth is precisely the model that these new countries want to dispense with?

Mr. Carrington: I am well aware of that and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing it out.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: A number of local authorities in eastern Europe are well ahead in the development of contracting out and in their philosophy of service to the customer—ahead of Lambeth council, that is. I submit that Lambeth council could learn a lot if the technology transfer were in the other direction.

Mr. Carrington: My hon. Friend makes a strong point which suggests that perhaps we should have a Bill to enable Lambeth to take advice from local authorities in Hungary, although that takes us a long way from the subject of the debate.

Mr. John Bowis: The Bill should have a degree of reciprocity, but perhaps for that we would need to seek the leave of the Hungarian Parliament rather than this one. The issues of criteria and monitoring the value of schemes are important because the last thing that we want is duplication by local authorities or by parties on a local authority. It is conceivable that two parties on a local authority would seek to provide schemes and that would not be in anybody's best interests. That is why we need control and monitoring.

Mr. Carrington: My hon. Friend's valid point reinforces my argument. Not many overseas local authorities would think that they had a great deal to learn from Lambeth. The danger is that a sharp-suited salesman, perhaps trained in the old GLC, would rush out to persuade local authorities——

Mr. Tony Banks: I am quite happy to lock on to the debate about such matters, although it will not get us very far. I should be far more suspicious of a sharp-suited man from the PSA in view of the considerable amount of corruption there during the time that the Conservative Government has been responsible for the activities of the PSA. The hon. Gentleman should be cautious about attacking Lambeth borough council because much Government departmental fraud and corruption could bear some critical examination.

Mr. Carrington: The hon. Gentleman is right to criticise people who wear sharp suits. People dressed like that always raise suspicions.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I am suspicious about the validity of these arguments in relation to the amendment. Hon. Members must address the amendment.

Mr. Carrington: I am grateful for your direction, Madam Deputy Speaker. My point is not about sharp suits, but about Lambeth persuading local authorities to take actions that are against their better judgment.
Model local authorities are legion and Wandsworth is an especially good example. It could set up in a neighbouring local authority in Hungary an efficient and cost-effective system that would deliver the required services. Because the two authorities were close there would be tremendous conflict. Therefore, the Secretary of State's involvement is vital to ensure that the good model is used overseas and the bad model is not. The amendment may allow a council such as Lambeth to act in contravention of Government policy and best local government practice. Perhaps the Minister could reassure me about that.

Mr. Pickles: Hon. Members will note from my size that it is some years since I was able to fit into a sharp suit. I


apologise to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) for missing the early part of his speech, but I had the opportunity to listen to the debate in Committee. I have received assurances that the measure will not restrict the powers of local authorities.
Many taxpayers and ratepayers feel that this is not the sort of activity in which local authorities should engage. Councils are under financial restraint and it is a brave councillor who announces that his authority is about to embark on such work. Government blessing for many of the schemes is needed to legitimise them and to demonstrate that they are in the interests not only of local residents, but of the wider community. I hope to speak later in the debate about how the schemes could be extended to help local firms and communities.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my hon. Friend think that it would be useful to have the ever-vigilant eye of local residents watching what is being done and how money is being spent? Every penny spent abroad to assist developing countries should be spent as carefully as money spent at home.

Mr. Pickles: That is important. Many local people will have experience of the countries that the legislation will affect, but most will not. However, even that experience may not enable them to make value judgments on schemes. Local people should be given judgment criteria and the Bill suggests that that should be provided by the Secretary of State. The Bill does not give the Secretary of State the power to say what must be done, as some local authorities suggest. Councils may engage in certain activities, provided the residents and the councils think that they are good. It is an enabling power, rather than one that forces councillors to follow a specific course.

Mr. Lester: I would not want anyone to get the wrong idea. The Bill will give authorities power to act as agents for the spending of money that is not provided by charge payers. That is one of the key measures in the Bill. Local authorities have a tremendous range of experience, but it would be wrong for charge payers to fund overseas schemes. Money will be provided from the know-how funds, the Overseas Development Administration, and European and United Nations funds, but local authorities are able to provide the best technical assistance. There is a de minimis provision, but it is so small that it would not affect any charge payer's bill.
Local authorities are being granted an important freedom to look at projects before they make a bid for money from the know-how funds. The legislation is not designed to give charge payers or council taxpayers a shock by saying that local authorities will suddenly take on the work of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Mr. Pickles: Of course, my hon. Friend is correct. I am sure that he readily accepts that, while local authorities will be the agents for funds that will come mainly from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, there will be some cost to local authorities. The Bill is about stopping——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not discussing the Bill as a whole: we are discussing an amendment.

Mr. Pickles: I apologise. I was about to speak specifically to the amendment which relates to the powers of the Secretary of State.

Mr. Jenkin: The concern to which the amendment, in conjunction with the rest of the Bill, gives rise is whether we are in danger of allowing local authorities to undertake activities of a quasi-commercial nature, which the officers or the councillors might purport to be breaking even or even making a profit for the local authority, but which might subsequently result in substantial liabilities for the authority, which would be taken up by the charge payers.
Without wishing to antagonise the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), I have to say that we all know local authorities that undertake ambitious schemes that subsequently do not match the financial expectations. Do the Bill and the amendment provide safeguards against incompetence or failure adequately to assess the situation of a potential project?

Mr. Pickles: The assessment comes in partnership between the Government and local authorities, and recognises the needs of the countries that it is designed to help. In other sectors, local authorities may wish to use existing powers in conjunction with new powers and we need to be certain that those powers are not restricted. The intention is to clarify the law and ensure that local authorities have confidence, but, in doing so, we should not take powers away. That is the central point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) may think that the Bill will suddenly open the floodgates and that councils of various political persuasions will be trading throughout the world, but the simple answer is that that will not happen.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the greatest fears of many residents—I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) for clarifying the point that the money will be Government money and that councils will be acting as agents—will be about what the local authority is doing spending the time of its officers and councillors on assisting other countries when there are problems in their council area? People will feel that councils should be devoting all their time and energy to clearing up the local problems, rather than messing around abroad. The very fact that projects will go to the Government for approval will enable the assistance to be given. Without the approval of the Secretary of State, the assistance might not be given because local authorities would be afraid to get involved.

Mr. Pickles: I am grateful. My hon. Friend has made: a number of useful contributions to the debate on the amendment. He has aired the concerns that many members of the public will have. The debate will assure them that that is not the intention of the Bill. It will enable work to be done in partnership. I look forward to my hon. Friend's contribution later in our proceedings when we can underline many of the points that he has made so well.

Mr. Bowis: If we are speaking in terms of sharp suits, perhaps I can refer to the elegant curves of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles). The debate is following the good lines set out by the debates in our useful Committee stage. With the amendment, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has allowed us to debate again a point that we debated in Committee, to see whether it can be clarified further.
We are talking about the balance that we need to strike between the enterprise, initiative and enthusiasm of local


authorities that are willing to give their expertise to parts of the world that need it and the need for the control and sensible use of resources, which is where the Secretary of State comes in.
The Bill has that balance right, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) confirmed in his intervention. It is important that we get that balance right, because nobody wishes to restrict local authorities to such an extent that they say, "We cannot be bothered if they are not interested in what we have to offer. We wanted to offer this, but they say no, so we shall give up and go to somebody else." Equally, we must take account of the total of resources and the way in which they can and should be used.

Lady Olga Maitland: Does my hon. Friend agree that a local authority, by offering technical know-how and assistance, may gain enormous benefit for its locality by opening up trading links, and that trading links with newly developed eastern European countries can be of enormous benefit to the local businesses of that borough?

Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend is right. I am not sure of the extent to which the Bill will advance trading links, except that the more that local authorities have links abroad under the auspices of the Bill, the more likely it is that when they go abroad with their expertise, they may be accompanied by local business men. That would be an offshoot, but it cannot be written into the Bill.

Mr. Carrington: I did not wish to intervene again in the debate on the amendment, but I must make it clear that the point is that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) has made clear, if a local authority is giving assistance, through whatever way, to some other local authority, it will lead to trading links, if only because that other local authority will look to this country for support services, computer services, software services and others. There will be true economic benefits, as well as the principal purpose of the Bill, which is to spend aid money.

Mr. Bowis: That is correct. The benefit may flow back to the specific locality that has been giving assistance or to the country in general.
I am conscious that Madam Deputy Speaker would prefer us to stick closely to the amendment. The key is the role of the Secretary of State and of monitoring and the need to avoid the problem of duplication, along the lines mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington). We must also ensure sensible prioritising. Many councils, such as Wandsworth, may have good schemes and experience to offer, but the priority in terms of national spending and national advice may require that one or two of those be selected for this as opposed to subsequent years, and that, again, is where the Secretary of State comes into the reckoning.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) gently prodded the question of what she called junketing and what we in Committee called jollies. We looked for guidance to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West. He has great knowledge and experience, which he shared with us. He could take us round the world in a silver car, with the chairman in the

boot—or was it the other way round?—no doubt from county hall, or to the Nicaraguan airlines office. I say this with great benevolence.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bowis: I had a feeling that I might have to give way to the hon. Gentleman on that point.

Mr. Banks: For the sake of the record, I should inform the hon. Gentleman that I was the only chairman of the Greater London council who never made a visit abroad. It was not so much that I did not want to do so but that I felt that, as the GLC was threatened with abolition, if I went abroad something nasty would happen to it in my absence.
The House is perhaps not the best place to discuss trips abroad. We have not many lessons to teach people in terms of abstinence. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) would no doubt have said about House of Commons visits abroad, if he had been here in his usual place, "They never go fact finding to Greenland in the middle of winter".

Mr. Bowis: I am sure that we shall be visiting Greenland next. I was not criticising the hon. Gentleman. Had it had the opportunity at the time, I would have recommended that the entire GLC was sent off to a remote desert island where it could give advice to the local monkeys. London would then have been a happier place sooner than it eventually became one. Let me leave that subject on the happy note of unanimity across the Floor of the House.
My hon. Friends the Members for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and for Brentwood and Ongar spoke about local opinion. We want to ensure, of course, that local opinion supports the various measures that are undertaken. The main funding will be recouped from national and international sources, but there will be some on-costs. If, for example, a council officer is seconded to carry out work in another country, some sacrifice will be made by the local community. It is important that the local community gives its full support to such work or there could be resentment.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe said, we want to ensure that we avoid the flavour-of-the-month mentality. I am sure that at the moment any project involving Bosnia or Somalia would have the wholehearted support of a council, while similar projects for Cambodia or Bulgaria would not. On the other hand, perhaps we should be sending people to those countries. By the time that Bosnia is in a position to accept help, it may not be headline material and another sad part of what was Yugoslavia may have come to the fore.
I support the amendment.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robin Squire): It has been said that the powers that local authorities already have to provide assistance overseas may be endangered by the Bill. Indeed, it has been suggested that such powers make the Bill unnecessary. For reasons that I shall explain, the Government believe that authorities do not have such powers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) would be saying fortissimo, that is precisely why the Bill is before the House. There is no reason why authorities that are already undertaking activities for which they believed they had powers—that is, prior to the passage of the Bill—will be prevented from continuing them when the Bill takes its place on the statute book. The Bill will give them formal, legal powers.
The amendment, which was moved by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), is designed to introduce a without-prejudice clause. The argument for it is that, by providing a specific power to give overseas technical assistance, the Bill will remove local authorities' existing ability to undertake such work on the basis of discretionary powers, such as section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972, or of other specific powers such as the power under section 33 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 in respect of the promotion of economic development.
That is one concern to local authority associations that was not discussed in detail in Committee. The reason for that is that while stressing that the Government remained unconvinced of the need for such a clause, I agreed to review the matter if the local authority associations gave us further information. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West then properly withdrew his amendment.
My officials met officials from the associations, both immediately after the Bill's consideration in Committee and earlier this week, and the associations will let us have the necessary further information in time for the Bill's consideration in Committee in another place.
10.45 am
I shall restate my undertaking. I shall review the case for a without-prejudice clause seriously as soon as the associations are able to produce the further information that they have promised. In the meantime, it may be helpful if I set out as clearly as possible why, on the basis of the information that is to hand, I am opposed to a without-prejudice clause.
Section 137 of the 1972 Act permits an authority to incur expenditure which in its opinion is in the interests of, and will bring direct benefit to, its area or any part of it, or to all or some of its inhabitants. However, that power is limited. First, an authority may not rely on the section for a purpose on which it is authorised to incur expenditure by any other power, whether the power is conditional or unconditional. Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, the direct benefit to the authority's area, or any part of it, or to all or some of its inhabitants must be commensurate with the expenditure incurred under section 137. I do not see how incurring expenditure in providing advice and assistance to overseas bodies can be of any direct benefit to the inhabitants of an authority's area, let alone a benefit that is commensurate with the amount spent.
Section 33 of the 1989 Act gives authorities the power to take such steps as they consider appropriate for promoting the economic development of their areas.

Mr. Tony Banks: The Minister is taking up the point that was made by the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington). It is a matter that could lead to a legal argument. If, for example, information or assistance had been provided under section 137 and there was a spin-off in terms of contracts coming back into the area of the local authority that had provided that information or assistance, it could be argued that there was a direct benefit to the people living in the area controlled by the authority. Section 137 gives an open power to local authorities, and it would always be possible to find a lawyer to argue that there was direct benefit to the local authority as a result of assistance given to an overseas authority.

Mr. Squire: The hon. Gentleman highlights why we need the Bill, which clarifies and spells out the relevant powers of local authorities. We are discussing a narrow but important point and I reiterate my willingness to listen to the massed ranks of lawyers, if such a body can be imagined, as they advise me whether a without-prejudice clause is necessary.

Mr. John Whittingdale: Does my hon. Friend agree that section 137 has been used by socialist local authorities to divert ratepayers' funds to help a wide variety of extremist, lunatic fringe groups? It is perhaps not surprising that there is a degree of suspicion on the part of the ratepayer whenever the section is mentioned. One of the benefits that will stem from the Bill is the recognition that the involvement of local authorities in overseas assistance is entirely legitimate and welcomed by the Government.

Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Were we to develop it, we would take ourselves back over much of the history of the past 15 years or so. Fortunately, all the signs are that local authorities in general are much more responsive now than they were during the time to which my hon. Friend directly and properly referred. He is right, however, to suggest that there is a balance to be struck. In recognition of that, the Bill introduces some restraints and restrictions so that council tax payers, as they will be in a week's time, will have the knowledge that they will be properly protected.

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) made an interesting intervention. He highlighted the possibility that local authorities might seek a contractual relationship with local authorities in eastern Europe to provide services, or to manage services, in the areas covered by those authorities. My concern is that there are not sufficient checks and balances to ensure that such work is undertaken on a commercial basis. Would that work, under the Bill, be acceptable trade in which a local authority might engage?

Mr. Squire: Most of the activity that is covered by the Bill would be funded, in effect, by one or more know-how funds; in other words, the Bill does not provide funding. Where that is not the position, upper limits are spelt out that apply to the moneys that a local authority will be able to incur over and above the sum that is being funded by one or other of the know-how funds.
I was referring to section 33 of the 1989 Act. There are various restrictions on the power contained in that Act and the regulations made under it.

Mr. Jenkin: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Squire: Yes, but I want to make progress.

Mr. Jenkin: I apologise to my hon. Friend; I am grateful to him for giving way again. We all know of occasions when it emerges that local authorities have taken part in what has subsequently been regarded as unlawful trade. I thought that that was the point raised by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West. I am still not clear whether the Bill interferes with the rights of, or restrictions on, local authorities. Does it change the nature of the rules that might allow local authorities effectively to trade h counterparts in eastern Europe? Will my hon. Friend comment on that?

Mr. Squire: The Bill would state in law what was previously believed to be the law, under which a number of local authorities were carrying out activities—until one of the flotilla of lawyers, to which the hon. Member for Newham, North-West referred, drew attention to the error. The important point is that to the extent that local authorities are involved overseas, the Bill makes it clear that it must be in areas in which those authorities have expertise. They must genuinely be able to demonstrate that they have that expertise within their own ranks. I think that that is probably the best assurance on restraint that I can offer my hon. Friend.
I find it impossible to imagine how the power under the 1989 Act, which permits an authority to take steps to assist in the setting up of a commercial undertaking in the authority's area, and the creating of opportunities for employment in that area, can be said to give an authority power to provide an overseas body with advice and assistance. Surely the point of the Bill is that there is a serious doubt about the legitimacy of using the existing power for overseas technical work. The Audit Commission has taken the view that there are no existing powers for technical assistance—otherwise, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin), there would be no need for the Bill. It is difficult to envisage the purpose of a without-prejudice clause relating to certain powers, when there are substantial grounds for doubt that those powers exist.
However, to meet the concern of the local authority associations that small-scale technical assistance work arising out of, and incidental to, other links with overseas communities—such as the traditional town twinning with which hon. Members will be well acquainted—should not require consent under the Bill, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State proposes to give a general authorisation for such work below an approved threshold, which is twice such expenditure in the previous financial year or that planned for the current year.
I will deal briefly and succinctly with the points made during the debate. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West cannot tempt me down the road of discussing the Property Services Agency this morning. I urge him to await the outcome of the current inquiries and not to believe everything that he reads in The Guardian—indeed, particularly everything that he reads in The Guardian.
The hon. Gentleman asked me two questions. The first related to what would happen to the existing powers under section 137 when the Bill is enacted. The short answer is nothing; they will continue. As I have made clear, existing powers under that section cover technical advice and assistance.
The second and important question was about what happens to work already under way as a result of a local authority's interpretation of section 137. Again, the answer is nothing. That work is currently taking place in the absence of clear powers, but my right hon. and learned Friend is ready to offer sanction for such work during the passage of the Bill, should that prove necessary. Once the Bill is enacted, work already under way will continue under the Bill's provisions. The hon. Gentleman and some of my hon. Friends rightly raised the legitimate concern that existing work might be threatened, but I am happy to assure them that that is not the case.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington), without necessarily knowing it, hit the bullseye when he spoke about Hungary. You know,

Madam Deputy Speaker, that any reference to persons outside this Chamber would be out of order, so I certainly would not make one. However, hon. Members may be interested to know that among those advising me this morning, and not located many miles away, is a visitor from Hungary. He has been following our activities as part and parcel of the Department's work with Hungary and other countries. I am certain that he would have been fascinated to hear our comments this morning. I am also certain that he would conclude, as did my hon. Friend, that although Hungary has little, if anything, to learn from Lambeth, Lambeth may have a significant amount to learn from Hungary.

Mr. Tony Banks: Send in the tanks.

Mr. Squire: It would be tasteless to take up the hon. Gentleman's comment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, echoed by my curved hon. Friends the Members for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) and for Battersea (Mr. Bowis)—but who am I to speak?—spoke of the importance of striking a balance between a reasonable check on the activities of local authorities and not snuffing out the good, creative ways in which local authorities are already assisting so many other countries, especially in central and eastern Europe. I assure my hon. Friend that it is not our intention to do the latter and nothing within the Bill would do that. On the contrary, I hope that the Bill will bring the opportunities and advantages available to the attention of those local authorities that are not yet involved in this important work.
A without-prejudice clause is unnecessary, would achieve nothing, and would reintroduce an element of confusion into an area that the Bill would sort out and clarify once and for all. In the light of my undertaking to consider the matter further, I hope that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West will withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Tony Banks: I am very much encouraged by the Minister's response. Both he and the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) said that the amendment was unnecessary. There are still matters that need to be resolved, but from what the Minister said I understand that the local authority associations will continue to talk to him about them. It is for those associations to demonstrate that a without-prejudice clause is required. I feel confident that if they can do that to the Minister's satisfaction, the necessary amendments will be introduced in another place.
The Bill has all-party support. All those involved in it understand that there is no intention to limit the ability of local authorities or to make the position more difficult for them, but, on the contrary, to facilitate what has been happening and to encourage further developments. I take what the Minister said as an encouraging sign that if there is an omission from the Bill that would frustrate the activities to which we have been referring, he will rectify that.
I am still a little concerned about the questions surrounding section 137 of the 1989 Act, which was, perhaps, passed in happier times. It is a broad section which gives very wide powers. The Minister did not mention section 142 of that Act, which relates to the provision of information. That is also widely interpreted by local authorities, as it was meant to be, and it can be used for the provision of information overseas. The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) said that such


activities should be generally co-ordinated. The hon. Gentleman can afford to be elegantly dressed. While he was speaking, I took the precaution of checking the Register of Members' Interests, and can understand how he can afford to shop at the best tailors in Savile row, and no doubt he does.
Much needs to be done in terms of co-ordination, and no doubt the Secretary of State will be able to do it. One must commend many local authorities of all political persuasions—I am not as biased as some Conservative Members—for their pioneering work, and the Bill acknowledges that and encourages and facilitates that process.
11 am
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman used the amendment to make a ritual attack on Lambeth. I well understand why he might be suspicious of sharp-suited sales persons. Knowing that he is an adviser to the Saudi International bank, I well understand his concern, given the amount of corruption and palm-greasing that goes on in the area in which he no doubt gives a great deal of advice in the middle east. If the hon. Gentleman is suspicious of a sharp-suited sales person, perhaps he would not be quite so suspicious of a sharp jellaba-dressed gentleman wearing a gold Rolex on his wrist.
The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) mentioned the Greater London council, which is appropriate because we are just approaching the week in which, on 31 March, we will mark the seventh anniversary of its abolition—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That was an entirely predictable response from the Conservative Benches and would not be the response elicited from the great majority of Londoners. I am far more concerned about them than ideologically fixated Conservative Members.

Mr. Robin Squire: As that is such an illustrious anniversary, and in response to the hon. Gentleman's point, in at least the past four or five of the seven years since the GLC's abolition, I have not—as a London Member of Parliament—received one letter from anyone asking me to recreate that monstrosity.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the debate continues, I point out that it is not appropriate to hold either a celebration or a wake.

Mr. Banks: I agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, and it would be pointless writing to the Minister on that particular subject.

Mr. Carrington: I do not want to pursue the abolition of the GLC, but it does raise the interesting point of whether the hon. Gentleman considers that it would be appropriate for the Inner London education authority to give advice under the terms of the amendment and clause. One effect of abolishing the ILEA is universal agreement across all parties that the ILEA's education provision was wasteful and poor, and did not achieve good standards. However bad some boroughs are, the education that they provide now is better—even in the worst of them—than that provided by the ILEA.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That point is entirely irrelevant. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not pursue it and that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) will not respond.

Mr. Banks: It is unfortunate, Madam Deputy Speaker that your stricture was not applied a little earlier before the hon. Gentleman completed his intervention. It would, of course, be impossible for a now-defunct body to give advice to anyone. As someone who received his education under the Inner London education authority, I thought that it was a wonderful authority. Were the ILEA to be extant, it would give excellent advice.
A strategic authority such as the Greater London council could have given tremendous advice in eastern Europe.

Mr. Jenkin: indicated dissent.

Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman shows his ignorance of not only the Greater London council but good tailoring.
In the case of emergency services—such as the London fire brigade—that were the responsibility of the GLC, tremendous information was given to overseas authorities.
As to waste disposal——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am also not inclined to permit a trip down memory lane.

Mr. Banks: You old spoil-sport, Madam Deputy Speaker—I said that affectionately, rather than with any reference to chronological order.
London does not have a strategic authority now, but when we have a Labour Government one day soon, one will be established. I was not so much taking a walk down memory lane as pointing out that a strategic authority for London could give advice in many areas. The powers that I mentioned with regard to emergency services have passed to the London fire and civil defence authority, which gives advice overseas and has sent teams to disaster areas to apply the techniques learned under the London county council, the GLC and the LFCDA. That is precisely the kind of advice and assistance embraced by the Bill.
The waste disposal authority that took over from the GLC can give information and pass on some of the high technology devised in London to cope with waste disposal from such a large conurbation. Such information would be invaluable and would no doubt be welcomed by authorities in eastern Europe, for example.

Mr. Lester: Waste disposal authorities are covered in the Bill.

Mr. Banks: I mentioned them for the benefit of those who did not have the pleasure of sitting on the Committee with the hon. Gentleman. I hope that I am passing on a little light, but not a great deal of heat. In eastern Europe, standards of waste disposal have been appalling in countries such as Albania and Romania. A London authority could teach them a great deal.

Mr. Bowis: It goes wider than that, because international agreements would be needed to solve some of those problems. The hon. Gentleman set up various arguments and then knocked them down himself. Strategic authorities that have a purpose, such as the LFCDA arid the authority that brings together waste disposal in various boroughs, are covered by the Bill and can give advice. The hon. Gentleman has demolished his own argument for the need for other strategic authorities, which would be merely wasteful monstrosities and a burden on taxpayers.

Mr. Banks: That does not necessarily follow from the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I referred to a number of


bodies that are engaged in such activities. The hon. Gentleman will remember that they were all grouped under one body when the GLC existed. His argument does not bear logical examination.

Mr. Jenkin: As to waste disposal, some large private sector companies in this country and throughout the European community are extremely good at providing advice. The Bill needs to guard against excessive crowding out of private sector activity by the excessive ambitions of the public sector as embodied by local authorities. The best lesson that eastern Europe can learn from the abolition of the GLC is that it should rid itself of unnecessary tiers of government.

Mr. Banks: I hope that that will not be a lesson that they draw from the abolition of the GLC. I hope that they will draw the lesson that if a country has a constitution, it will not be possible for someone to walk in and abolish a directly elected and democratic body, merely because the Government of the day, particularly the Prime Minister of the day, does not happen to like it. That seems to me to smack more of the Stalinism and totalitarianism from which they have just escaped. If she could be dug up, I suppose that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) would probably go over and give advice to some of the beleaguered democracies in eastern Europe and tell them how to restore Stalinism. They might like it.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is, so to speak, taking off again. Can I bring him back to the amendment?

Mr. Banks: I could not resist the temptation, Madam Deputy Speaker. I blame the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) entirely for provoking me. I can resist everything except temptation.
When the GLC was in being, it worked in concert with the private sector over waste disposal. Correy, the waste disposal company, worked closely with the GLC. One saw its barges going up and down the Thames. The hon. Member for Colchester, North needs to understand a little more of the history of that period of abolition that preoccupied the House for such a long time.
I tabled all these amendments at the request of the local authority associations. The Minister has assured us today that the discussions with the local authority associations will continue and that in the event of their being able to demonstrate beyond peradventure that there is a difficulty, he will introduce the necessary amendments in another place. I am delighted to hear that Lady Flather is to be responsible for taking the Bill through the other place. She has great sensitivity when it comes to both overseas development and local authorities. As I am happy with the Minister's assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Tony Banks: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 5, leave out 'or'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 8, in page 2, line 8, at end insert
'or,
(c) a parish, town or community council within the area of any local authority as specified in this section.'.

Mr. Banks: These amendments test the intention of the Bill to limit its scope to local authorities and the bodies derived from them, as set out in clause 1(7) and (8). Parish, town or community councils are currently excluded from the Bill.
Under the know-how fund technical link scheme, however, proposals have already been received from several parishes. These include Castleton parish council in Derbyshire, in concert with the Peak District national park. Their prospective partners are Skala and Ojcow national parks, both of which are in south Poland. Dulverton parish council in Somerset, in conjunction with the Exmoor national park, have prospective partners in Poland and the Czech Republic. Everyone can immediately see why both Poland and the Czech Republic should be involved with parish councils; they lie in the area of national parks. Interest has been shown by other parish councils—in the Grampian region, Kent, Lancashire and South Yorkshire.
11.15 am
From this recent display of interest, it will be clear that parish councils are anxious in many cases to offer overseas assistance. By definition, parish councils are very small. Even the largest employs only a few members of staff. What they lack in staff expertise, however, is more than compensated for in enthusiasm and a direct involvement in the community.
In line with the general desire to devolve powers and to involve people down to the lowest level—subsidiarity being the term with which we are most familiar in this place—it is a little puzzling that the sponsor of the Bill and the Minister have not so far shown any great interest in extending the scope of the Bill in that direction. The active involvement of local communities, probably drawing directly on the enthusiasm and expertise of parish councillors and the community, is to be welcomed.
It would help if the hon. Member for Broxtowe and the Minister were to agree to consider further this question, in the light of the interest from parishes in the Government's scheme. We have heard about the upsurge of interest. Areas of involvement in which parishes have expertise have been indentified. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will give favourable consideration to the amendments.

Mr. Lester: The request for inclusion of this amendment in the Bill is similar to the previous one. I have nothing against parish, town or community councils. My overall view, however, as someone with previous experience of local government, is that it is hard to see how a parish council could employ technical staff and therefore be able to offer technical assistance overseas.
The illustrations given by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West are borne out by my research. Quite by accident I came across such a scheme. Marlborough town council has linked up with Gunjar in the Gambia. I would add, by the way, that Marlborough is a small and attractive town. The town council plays only a part in that role. However, it takes over to Gunjar a team of people, all volunteers, who add classrooms to schools and do all sorts of worthwhile work in the Gambia.
Marlborough has assisted in the most positive way that I can describe. A young man from that community wrote to me. I did not know him from Adam. He said that he would like to come to this country to study hotel and catering skills and asked whether I could help him. I wrote


to a college in London that specialises in teaching those skills. Much to my amazement and gratitude, the principal of that college wrote back to me and said that, as I had asked, he was prepared to give this young man a scholarship. I was very grateful to him.
The problem then arose of what to do next. I had neither the resources nor the facilities to house that young man in London while he pursued his scholarship. He then informed me that there was the Marlborough link scheme. Very generously, it took on the cost of maintaining him in this country. It also assisted him by providing him with work experience in a local hotel in Marlborough. He has returned to his country with a sheaf of qualifications and recommendations. He is a very enterprising young man. I hope that those qualifications and recommendations will lead to his being quickly ensconced as the manager of one of the new hotels that are being built in the Gambia and providing services in that hotel of a quality that will encourage many people and, I hope, many of my hon. Friends, to go there for a holiday. In that way we shall assist in developing a very small country, but one which is important to us.
I use that example to show that town councils can be part of something that is worth while. I do not believe, however, that they need the powers of the Bill to do what they have already achieved through the link scheme. It may be, however, that in future they will need that power. I have no particular reason for excluding authorities of that size from the provisions of the Bill, if their exclusion is seen in any way to be to their disadvantage. Nevertheless, the local authority associations will need to make more of a case, in terms of the Bill, to bring about that type of beneficial interchange and exchange.
I am conscious of the fact that town councils can be fairly large bodies. One town council, Brackley, serves a population of 59,000 people. If we compare that with anything in the third and the developing world, we see that it is a substantial authority. Therefore, I do not wish to prevent any local authority with the necessary capability from participating, by means of the Bill, in the interchange that we are trying to promote.
I hope that those remarks will reassure the hon. Gentleman that in no sense are we negative. In every sense we are positive. We are trying to obtain the maximum that we possibly can from the Bill in order to promote these various interests.

Mr. Carrington: It worries me when I find myself in some measure of agreement with the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). We differ on most matters, including matters sartorial. However, he has an extremely valid point on this amendment in that I cannot see a reason for excluding town councils from the legislation.
I understand that there may be a few instances where a parish council would be able to give advice or, indeed, would be advised to give advice—if that is not too convoluted a phrase. I can see circumstances where it may be possible that such advice would be sensible and where we would not wish to exclude a body, however small, from the ability to make use of the legislation or be able, under the auspices of the Secretary of State, to come in as part of a complete restructuring advice package that is being given to an area of some foreign country. One can imagine a situation where a whole structure of local government might be set up with advice from an equivalent local

government structure in the United Kingdom. In such cases, one would not wish to exclude the bottom tiers of councils from being able to participate in that. I understand the concern that too small a council might have to use a disproportionate amount of its resources to be able to give advice. With few officers or, in some cases, no officers at all, such councils may take on things which are impossible for them to deliver in the final analysis. At the beginning, they may go in with enthusiasm, determination and good ideas, but then time passes, the project slows down and things become more difficult. Finally, the Secretary of State may have to bail out the parish council which is giving the advice and that may cause an enormous problem. The Bill contains sufficient safeguards to ensure that that will not happen.
If a parish council takes on something that is patently too large for it to be able to undertake, that is too complex or, indeed, that is not done in partnership with a larger authority that would give support, the Secretary of State will have the power to refuse permission for the council to get involved. Therefore, the purpose of the amendments must be welcomed.
The Bill may already include parish councils; I am not clear on that. If that is the case, the amendments are unnecessary, and that is also welcomed. We need to clarify the exact position of small councils because the advice that they can give could be worth while for the development of countries, especially those in eastern Europe.

Sir Michael Marshall: I support my hon. Friend's argument. When we were discussing this matter in Committee, I got the impression that it was difficult to foresee circumstances in which parish or town councils might come forward. Recently, Bognor Regis town council in my constituency carried out an exercise—this is an interesting example for my hon. Friends and Labour Members—using automatic vote-counting machinery for a local referendum. Under present legislation, such automatic vote-counting machinery cannot be used in the United Kingdom for the normal processes with which we are all familiar. At that level, it is possible to experiment.
In this specific case, the manufacturer of the equipment provided it as a trial. Observers came from different parts of the world, including the different part of the world called the Home Office. It was an extremely interesting example of something to which, I suspect, we shall have to bend our minds before too long—whether we should be using automatic vote-counting machinery. It could have been used in this case to give know-how to visitors.
We have been talking about taking know-how outwards. With such experiments, it is possible to give some practical experience which would be of value to the sort of countries that we have in mind under the terms of the Bill. In view of what has been said about the Bill, I am not sure whether we need to carry the amendment. Certainly, it raises a proposition that is worthy of consideration. Perhaps it might be re-examined in another place, if not here.

Mr. Robin Squire: As the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said, the purpose of amendments Nos. 7 and 8 is to extend the provisions of the Bill to allow parish, town or community councils to provide advice and assistance to overseas bodies with regard to any matter in which they have skill and experience. At present, the Bill does not give them that authority.
The Government are entirely open to argument on this point. It has been said that, throughout the discussions and the passage of the measure, we have been at pains to take into account the views of the local authority associations on all aspects of the Bill and accommodate their wishes, if at all possible. When officials and my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) met the associations on a number of occasions before Christmas, the question of including parish, town and community councils was raised by the associations, but was not pressed hard. My hon. Friend told the local government side that parish councils do not employ technical officers and the local government side did not pursue the matter further at the time.
On that basis, my hon. Friend and I concluded that it seemed unlikely that parish, town and community councils had much to contribute to the provision of technical assistance abroad, not least because many of them are small with limited resources. I should add, slightly tongue in cheek, that it may seem a little odd that associations should now wish to have parish powers extended in that direction when they have resisted extensions of parish powers a little closer to home than the subject of the Bill.
My serious and unqualified commitment is that if the associations can demonstrate that some parish, town and community councils have the ability to provide technical assistance to overseas bodies, I will certainly reconsider the matter. Of course, I should need to consult separately my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales. My commitment has been conveyed by my officials to the associations. I understand that the associations have undertaken to provide further information to enable the matter to be reconsidered before the Committe in another place. On that clear undertaking, I hope that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West will feel able to withdraw amendments Nos. 7 and 8.

Mr. Tony Banks: How I have yearned to hear a Minister come to the Dispatch Box, say that the Government are entirely open to argument and, on this occasion, mean it. It is a step forward for civilised behaviour and good government.
I welcome the Minister's assurances. The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) demonstrated that there are examples of activities in the local authority structure which the Bill is beginning to highlight and we are gathering more information all the time. The hon. Gentleman referred to Marlborough, which, as a town council, is its own parish council. Effectively, it is a parish council with a mayor. The need to extend the Bill is clearly demonstrated. The hon. Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall) gave a further example. As the knowledge of the Bill permeates through the local government structure, I suspect that hon. Members on both sides of the House will be able to discover more examples tucked away in their own areas.
If one looks at the Bill, one will find that parish, town and community councils are excluded. It is good to know that the Minister is prepared to listen to arguments. I suspect that the arguments will come from his own side as well as from the local authority associations. The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington), whose support I greatly welcomed, referred to our shared lack of sartorial tastes. That is because I have the taste but not the money and he enjoys the opposite condition.
Parish councils will be undertaking ventures in co-operation with other authorities. I gave examples of parish councils which were involved with national parks. Clearly, parish councils, by definition, do not have the resources to enable them to spare staff, as it were. However, a great deal of expertise has been built up in rural areas. It would be a shame not to allow it to be passed on to areas of the world where it is obviously very much needed.
I accept what the Minister said. It is good to know that on this occasion the Government are working with an open mind and are prepared to listen. Under those terms, and with the assurances that he has given me, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendments.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Lester: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
When I made my peroration on Second Reading, I suggested that by passing the Bill, the House would light one thousand candles in various parts of the world in which light could be cast on local communities by their linking with such communities in this country. During the Committee stage and since, I became convinced that that was an accurate analogy. Those of us who seek to encourage the forces of light rather than the forces of darkness will see that the Bill is perhaps one small way in which we can help to develop that concept.
Colleagues have mentioned local opinion. I should have thought that in any locality, opinion would be in favour of a more integrated and closer world, and the sharing of information and assistance in a way that narrowed the gap between those of us who live in privileged societies in the privileged world and the rest.
All my parliamentary and personal experience has convinced me that one of the truths of life is that the maximum human contact that is designed through good will to assist is essential to move things forward to counter the negative processes which are all too apparent to us in different parts of the world. Ethnic cleansing, the breaking of contact, the manufacture of nationalistic feelings of which we have many experiences in history, and the encouragement of hate, disgust and those forces that I am sure that no one in the House remotely encourages, are all too obvious.
Therefore, it is important that legislation such as my Bill, which seeks to encourage the best of our standards in a particular walk of life, are used to maximum effect. Some of us have come through local government to the House and, therefore, have a particular affection for it. We recognise that local government is the sinews of our democracy and that, unless we have the bricks with which to build democratic values and a democratic society, we cannot impose one from the top.
Equally, local government is highly relevant to our daily lives. For many people in many parts of the world, what is achieved in their locality is infinitely more important than what might be done in their national parliament or any international body. I have given one example of that today. It is important to one community of 20,000 people in the Gambia.
I am a member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. Currently we are examining Boutros Boutros


Ghali's document "Agenda for Peace", which sets the big scene for the world and the way in which it will develop into the next century. As part of that, I recently visited Cambodia—a tragic country which I know well. I have tried in many ways in the House to influence Government policy to help Cambodia's people to emerge from a dark passage of their history.
In a short time, there will be elections in Cambodia. It is essential that we assist the people with technology, which the United Nations has already done. Cambodia is turning to local authorities, including in Britain, for people to go out to Cambodia and man the election booths and electoral offices. Cambodia wants to convince its people that the election involves a secret ballot—something of which they have no experience—and that it will be run to the highest standards so that they can accept the result. That is important.
Cambodia is turning to us to send 50 people from all our local authorities who are prepared to join 950 people from other parts of the world to ensure that the election is run properly. The election could be crucial. We could have another Angola or we could move forward into a wholly different situation. That is a simple example of where standards that we have established and seek to maintain could be put to immediate practical effect.
One of the essential elements of "Agenda for Peace" is what we call preventive diplomacy. It is far better to prevent a dispute or a breakdown in society. One official from the Foreign Office or one ambassador is much cheaper than a battalion or an international rescue attempt, such as we have seen in Somalia. The Bill offers one further thread in that ability to prevent trouble and assist with preventive diplomacy.
The amount of money that we devote to preventive diplomacy is minuscule. It includes the know-how funds, which are essential. The Foreign Office budget represents only 1 per cent. of public expenditure. As "Agenda for Peace" suggests, diplomacy is the real way in which we defend our values and standards and share in giving assistance to other countries. So 1 per cent. of public expenditure seems a small amount to devote to that priority. That is not the issue with which we are dealing today, but all of us in the House should ensure that the means exist to play the full part that we can play because of Britain's history.
Britain is the only country in the world which is a member of the Security Council, the Commonwealth and the European Community. That is a unique combination which no other country has. That is to say nothing of our historical links through the Commonwealth with many other parts of the world. We can give much in terms of diplomatic skills and funds such as the know-how fund. We can share the skills of our local authorities wherever in the world they are most needed.
We have concentrated a great deal on the know-how funds as the means of assisting countries in eastern Europe. Indeed, we see daily how desperate Russia is for assistance. I am 110 per cent. behind that effort. Having provided the means for the implementation of the measures in the Bill, we need to grow the powers and ensure that the assistance is accepted. We need to propagate the knowledge in the relevant countries that the service is available.
It may reassure some of my colleagues who mentioned their anxieties about local government and local opinion that the initiative usually comes from the recipient

country. People turn to our local Foreign Office staff and say that they desperately need help on a certain matter. The Foreign Office makes a list from which local authorities make a bid to carry out the project. The Foreign Office ensures that the local authority is not only expert in that matter, but is able to make the link.
I said on Second Reading that many towns, cities and counties in Britain were linked to places in other countries. It is helpful if a link already exists and people have already got together for other reasons. In giving technical assistance and offering help, it is essential not only to provide assistance but to monitor it and continue to support it. In many cases, people have been offered help and advice and left to get on with it. So many things in this life require constant monitoring and assistance.
The town clerk in Harare, which is twinned with Nottingham, can pick up the telephone and speak to the chief executive of Nottinghamshire county council and say, "Michael, I have a problem. How can you assist?" The chief executive can immediately respond by sending a further officer or by offering advice on the telephone. Much can be achieved by such a human link.
Interestingly, other Commonwealth countries operate similar systems. I was particularly interested in the Federation of Canadian Municipalities international programme, whose symbol is
Together we can change the world"—
what a good symbol, because apart we can destroy the world, which I am afraid is happening in too many parts of the world. In terms of the benefit to British people, one of its findings is interesting. It says that the programmes that it has already established
have had a very positive impact on the Canadian municipalities involved, particularly in terms of professional growth. An improvement in the morale of Canadian municipal staff involved in the exchanges, and a shift in their attitude to how their city functions is beginning to be seen.
It further commented on the link between Burkina and Quebec:
Managers who have gone to Burkina have found lessons to be learned. In Quebec, one gets used to a standard of life, to good working conditions. Seeing the situation in Bogande gives one some humility. One also learns much by the way people there have retained the strong human warmth, in their business relations as well as their day-to-day life, something we have lost a little of here.
There is a two-way process, which can only be to the benefit of the local community. I am sure that all my colleagues will agree that we must build on that example.
Where do we go from here? One wants to look to the future. The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the Commonwealth should start to see how it can link our local authority associations with those in other parts of the Commonwealth. That is a natural link. Sadly, many parts of the Commonwealth are still undeveloped and local authority associations may not exist. I hope that one of the sponsors of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd), who is a member of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, will be able to make such a proposal for consideration at the association's international conference and, I hope, at the Heads of State conference. It would help to unite and assist the Commonwealth to develop and propagate the principle that together we can change the world.
I want my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall), who is president of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, to use the beneficent effects of the IPU to be big brother in the kindest and most helpful way to the many


little brothers in local government. I hope that, through his good offices, he will be able to make the rest of the international community aware of the many talents that British local government can offer in building a single world.
I am sure that no sane council tax payer would begrudge such measures of assistance or would take the line about junketing and all the negative attitudes that people tend to mention.
Eastern and central Europe are covered by a fund that is already established. I should like it to be enlarged and used as effectively as possible, but my interest is in countries that have less than those in eastern and central Europe, which are covered by the Overseas Development Adminstration. I hope that we can encourage officials and the very able ODA Minister to take account of the Bill under the technical link scheme, because the Bill is the most cost-effective means of offering assistance. Instead of the ODA using international consuultants, the Bill is a more direct practical link. The ODA may need to change its thinking, which sometimes takes a little time. The de minimis provision of our overseas aid budget is very small, but, cumulatively, the small amount that a local authority can spend under the Bill and, with ministerial encouragement, under the general authorisation could do an enormous amount of good. It would be helpful if my friends at the ODA began to think positively about how the relevant local authorities will be asked to offer assistance.

Lady Olga Maitland: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although it is essential to give as much help and assistance as possible to overseas countries, it is important that they have to pass the litmus test of being a democratic system in order to receive financial aid? That is one of the criteria that were first suggested by the Foreign Office.

Mr. Lester: That should not be the first litmus test, because much of what we are doing is to enable such countries to establish democratic systems. The only way in which we can genuinely serve communities throughout the world is under a democratic system. We must be a little careful in thinking that we have the only democratic system. There must be accountable government at any level where Governments should be accountable to the people that they serve. How countries achieve that object is very much a matter for them. The thrust of the Bill and of my speech is that we are trying to export our high standards, and democracy in this place is one of our highest standards.
I hope that this small Bill will have an enormous and profound effect. I am most grateful to all those who played a part in drafting it, in developing it and in crafting it in Committee: Opposition Members have been constructive and supportive; Conservative Members have revealed their intimate knowledge of the subject; the Government have been very supportive; and the Local Government International Bureau and members of local authorities shared the best of their knowledge and experience. I thank in advance Baroness Flather, who was commended by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), and who I am sure will do a marvellous job in the House of Lords.
I hope that before we adjourn for the summer recess all those who played a part in drafting the Bill will take the same joy and fundamental sense of purpose from their role and that the Bill will be given Royal Assent before the summer recess.

Mr. Pickles: I congratulate by hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) on his initiative in promoting the Bill. My hon. Friend was luckly to come high in the private Member's ballot. I do not know whether he came first or second. He could have chosen a controversial subject and achieved a lot of national publicity. It is entirely consistent with his distinguished record that he should choose to promote a Bill which will do good both on the local government scene and, more important, on the international scene.
The world has changed a great deal over the past few years. The great founding fathers of modern local government would be surprised to find British local government offering advice and assistance to countries many miles from these shores. Those engaged in local government activities are surprised to find that many of the problems and challenges faced in Britain by those seeking to deliver good local administration are almost exactly the same as the problems faced in Africa and in the former eastern bloc. It is important that we enable local councils to share their experiences and to point to good practice to ensure that democracy flourishes in other countries. Democracy now exists from Stettin to well beyond the Urals. It may not be the kind of democracy that is readily recognisable by the good councillors of Brentwood District or of Epping Forest District, but it is a vibrant and developing democracy.
The powers in the Bill are built on good local government practice. There has been a gradual build-up of information. The Bill is important in clarifying and codifying practices that are developing. We need to ensure that in years to come, district auditors, whether sharp-suited or not—my experience of district auditors leads me to believe that they are unlikely to be sharp-suited—will not be able to rule these matters outside the competence of local authorities. As we are all aware, the principal function of a district auditor is to arrive on the battleground long after the battle has been won and lost and noisily to bayonet the wounded. We need to ensure that local authorities have the power to avoid such problems.
In Committee and on Report, hon. Members have expressed the worry that the Bill will open the doors to junketing. I have been very critical of junketing. We must make it clear that the advice offered is largely technical and practical. It is principally designed to ensure that the officers and practitioners of the council have the opportunity to share their experience with people from other countries. I make a prediction. The clanking of the mayoral chain will not be heard as a result of the powers that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe seeks to give local government.
The new powers will develop in the way in which the twinning powers of local authorities have developed over the past 50 or 60 years. When I first became a councillor, I listened to a moving description of the patient and painstaking way in which links were built between this country, France and Germany between the two world wars


and of the way in which, after the conclusion of the second world war, those links were patiently and gradually built up again. Local authorities, along with the local communities, were prepared to make enormous efforts to forge links. Families from across Europe and beyond have grown up together. Schoolchildren have become familiar with the customs of this country, and our schoolchildren have become familiar with customs of other countries. There have been exchanges of cultural events and exchanges of trade events.
The links are directly relevant to the Bill. As I know from my constituency of Brentwood and Ongar, the schoolchildren from abroad who visited my part of Essex in the 1950s and 1960s are now adults of some importance in local industry, in local councils and in local business. They are familiar with Essex and we are familiar with the parts of the world from which they came. Naturally, when we think in terms of trade, of cultural exchanges, or of advice, we look to the people whom we have known for most of our lives. The Bill will start an important movement because the friendships and professional advice proposed in the Bill will serve this country well. We should not be too starry-eyed. The aims of my hon. Friend from Broxtowe are good and decent, and will bring democracy. The Bill will also help to promote the interests of this country. The development of democracy and economic growth in the countries concerned will have a direct bearing on our economy.
What do the newly emergent democracies want? I have had the opportunity to offer advice to colleagues in other lands. What strikes me most forcefully about eastern Europe is the fact that a whole generation has disappeared in terms of leadership. The people who run local councils and local democracy have had no experience of such work. They are generally people on the fringes of society. Many were imprisoned under the former regimes. They now find that, having stormed the barricades, they have to deal with many of the difficult practicalities that come with running a modern local council. I welcome the Bill. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe on making a valuable contribution to local government. I look forward to the Bill being given Royal Assent this year.

Sir Michael Marshall: I am glad to have the opportunity to follow my hon. Friends the Members for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) and for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), because I intend to address a number of the points they raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe rightly took us into the wider international dimension which lies behind the Bill. He is somewhat modest in speaking of it as a "little" Bill. The legislation has the potential to create an important extension of the development of the democratic process in many parts of the world.
I will outline some of the aspects of the legislation from my standpoint as president of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe asked me what the IPU could do in taking the process forward. I will outline what is happening at present and consider briefly how the process may go further. I will deal first with specific examples of local government activity within parliaments and within the IPU. One of the most striking examples, of which a number of hon. Members have experience, is the fact that delegations from many

countries, especially the newly emergent democracies in central and eastern Europe, relate strongly to the constituency visits and to discussions at local government level. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar said, we are dealing with a generation of people who have no experience of such structures.
I slightly disagreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar when he said that he saw multi-party democracy only in the officer context. I do not want to ignore the role of councillors in providing the sort of crash courses and assistance needed. I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that such work can be undertaken by people with worried looks and heavy frowns, not those wearing chains for ceremonial purposes, but links are being forged by parliamentary visits, particularly of those coming to this country from the newly emerging democracies.
The IPU stands for the peaceful resolution of conflicts and the development of representative institutions—two processes that are intermingled—and is able to take the process wider still. The IPU can help in deploying the interests of local government at the elected level as well as the interests of Parliament and national Government at a higher level.
Cambodia has been mentioned. It is a good example of the way in which the partnership is beginning to emerge. I had the chance to meet Dr. Boutros Boutros Ghali a few weeks ago specifically to discuss what can be done to assist in the electoral process in Cambodia. I am sure that it will be appreciated that trying to co-ordinate the work of 118 Parliaments—not just one's own Government—is an enormous task. It is not easy, and we are still in the early days.
There is a worry over Cambodia. In Angola, while the electoral process was generally seen as free and fair, it was challenged simply because the presence of overseas observers was limited. There were not enough people on the ground to prevent the sort of challenge to the outcome by opposition parties and others. That is why the United Nations has overall direction of the Cambodian elections and is seeking to assist at every level and particularly—as my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe said—in the process of overseeing the polling stations which are often in remote areas.
The process is not confined merely to local government officers and councillors. The request has gone out to Members of Parliament to undertake such work, which is arduous and in some ways seen as lower down the scale of work normally undertaken. However, the needs are such that the appeal has gone out on the wider spaces. I am proud to see that a number of hon. Members have considered the matter carefully—and I believe that some will come forward to assist the process, and possibly camp up country to participate in it.
Last week, I had the chance to visit the Romanian Parliament and address the Chamber of Deputies. We had perhaps underestimated the way in which that Parliament is moving towards a wider multi-party spread than we had previously thought. The Romanian Speaker will visit this country soon and will, I know, hope to have the opportunity of discussing with you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and your colleagues, the activities of the Chair in the way in which our parliamentary organisations are currently structured. In Romania, debates quickly turn to issues of local government and how it should be organised. Discussions then bring into play the way in which such


activities can be underpinned. The various possibilities include not just the know-how fund and the opportunities provided through the British Association for Central and Eastern Europe, but the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, which is doing important work in ensuring that party organisations have a chance to grow and develop. The current project list is widely drawn, although I suspect that it does not go as far towards local government as many hon. Members would wish. That is precisely why the Bill is so well timed and can act as a catalyst in taking the process forward.
I will not seek to rehearse the discussions that we had in Committee, but I am worried about one or two aspects of our proceedings this morning. Some of my hon. Friends—including, I think, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin)—seemed to believe that the process could displace commercial activities. I believe that it will have the opposite effect. My experience of county councils shows that they are organised to provide the know-how on road building and management for many parts of the world, not just central and eastern Europe, but Africa and Asia. In doing so, they bring British civil engineering interests into the various consortia. Specific commercial opportunities are provided by the work that is encouraged by the Bill.
Looking to the future, there are ways in which the process can be accelerated and taken wider to bring together a partnership of local government, councillors, the House of Commons, the other place, Government and commercial interests in schemes that have validity in a world with ever-increasing needs. I do not know what the local authority organisations are currently doing, but here may be a case for creating some sort of international organisation of local authorities to exchange ideas. We cannot simply assume that it should be a purely British effort.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe referred to work being done by the Canadian municipal organisations. In Committee, I asked my hon. Friend the Minister whether he had any other examples of the work being done in other countries. My research suggests that there is not much information on that subject, and I have the impression that the work in that sphere is limited.
In my response to the Bill, which I trust will become an Act, I will ensure that we take the process forward and draw it to the attention of the 118 Parliaments so that they take back to their local authorities the suggestions made. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe, through his work on the Bill, has started the process. I hope that it will be not only irreversible but worldwide.

Mr. Whittingdale: I will make a brief speech. I do not want to detain the House long and I am aware that other hon. Members wish to speak.
I was unable to be present for the Bill's Second Reading, but I read the debate carefully, and the subsequent Committee stage. I join my other hon. Friends in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) on introducing the Bill, which appears to have won wide support on both sides of the House.
The collapse of communism and what has happened in eastern Europe in the past couple of years is the most exciting event during my lifetime. I went to eastern Europe in 1983 and saw the state of poverty and the expressions of despair. I never thought that the collapse of communism would happen so quickly or come so soon.
With the collapse of communism come new problems, both economic and political. It is essential that we in the west give every assistance that we can to the people in eastern Europe to make the transition to an economic free market and political democracy. This country has been at the forefront in giving economic assistance through the know-how fund and other institutions, such as the European bank for reconstruction and development, the British Council and, most recently, the foundation set up by Baroness Thatcher, with which I had a small connection before becoming a Member of Parliament.
Such efforts must be matched by political assistance. My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall) mentioned the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, which is doing good work in helping embryonic political parties in eastern Europe. The Conservative party has also been providing those parties with help on campaign techniques and political skills. It is essential that we should help not merely national political parties, but local ones.
When I made a brief visit to eastern Siberia with Baroness Thatcher, we stopped to refuel at Bratsk. She was greeted by a delegation of local dignitaries, who turned out to be the hierarchy of the Irkutsk communist party. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe said that the essential requirement for functioning democracy is accountability, but I believe that that delegation had no accountability to the people of Irkutsk. I suspect that its members were accountable only to the Kremlin.
It is extremely important that we should give all the help that we can to the countries of eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union and other parts of the world to develop properly functioning local democracy. That is why I welcome the creation of the technical link scheme by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and why I give my full support to the Bill.
We have a long tradition in this country of town twinning links which have been set up to improve international relationships and promote friendship with other European countries. Essex, my area, is twinned with the region of Picardy. Maldon is twinned with Cuijk in Holland, a link established 14 years ago by the then mayor, Ron Daws. Since then, there have been regular exchanges between the two towns.
Colchester is twinned with Wetzlar in Germany and with Avignon, and has developed friendships with the towns of Siena, Zwolle, Tarragona and Tortosa. All these places are in western Europe. They provide valuable links, but we need to look further. We need to encourage towns such as the ones in my constituency that I have mentioned to develop links with towns and villages in eastern Europe and beyond, so that we can pass on to them our experience and skills and help them to develop their own forms of local democracy.
I welcome the Bill and I hope that towns across the country will take advantage of it, so that in due course Colchester will be twinned not just with Wetzlar but with Vladivostok, and Maldon not just with Cuijk but also with Cracow. This Bill will enable them to do that, and I give it my full support.

Mr. Bowis: I had not realised until now that my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale) was responsible for sending our Former noble leader to Siberia. I salute my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) for introducing the measure and for all that he does for the developing world east and west of the iron curtain. Occasionally, we have to mix our envy of his endurance of the tropical sun with admiration for what he achieves on these countries' behalf.
The Bill meets the concerns of local authorities about the possibility of finding themselves acting ultra wires. I will want to continue to monitor their concerns about currency fluctuations affecting the implementation of their plans. Given the uncertainties of currencies like the rouble, we do not want to find that a council that has sent staff somewhere runs out of money before the scheme has got under way. That problem needs to be treated with sympathy by the powers that be.
I entirely endorse the point about countries that a re not yet democracies. My hon. Friend mentioned Cambodia, for instance. I recall being in Namibia in the run-up to what the United Nations deemed were free and fair elections. There I met an electoral registration officer from Somerset, offering his expertise. I should like that to happen in more parts of the world, such as Palestine.
I would encourage local authorities to use for this purpose officers who have just retired. They have the requisite expertise, and using them will not deprive communities of that expertise. I think particularly of the former chief executive of my former council of Kingston—recorded as Wandsworth in the Official Report of the Committee proceedings—Bob McCloy, who has done so much for Bulgaria.
As for the financial benefits to local authorities, Wandsworth council has been selling its advisory services to many parts of the world, especially eastern and central Europe. Last year, that brought in £100,000 for the benefit of the community. That sort of activity should be further developed.
The Bill goes a long way towards bringing benefits to the recipient countries—and to the donor countries. Our councils can often learn something from the procedures and practices of the towns abroad to which they go. That is why we should endorse the Bill and wish it well. I wish Baroness Flather every success in taking the Bill through the other place, and I congratulate my hon. Friend once again on taking the measure through to the statute book.

Lady Olga Maitland: Because time is short I will briefly offer my sincere and wholehearted congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) on bringing in the Bill. The clarification that it affords is well overdue. The world is becoming like a global village; we must reach out and help those in need.
Of course we must help emerging democracies, but I must emphasise that know-how funds should primarily be given to countries that are already democracies. Advice is also badly needed. When I was in Yugoslavia before Christmas monitoring the elections it became clear to me how much that country need good advice on how to run elections. I will not go into the political shenanigans that were going on, but there was a genuine need to understand how to carry out free and fair elections.
The Bill is welcome because it can serve as a vehicle for developing trade links, too. In a week of great tragedy for Warrington, I have heard that the borough council there is doing magnificent work developing trade links in the form of technical expertise with eastern Europe, especially Czechoslovakia—to the tremendous benefit of local businesses.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member For Broxtowe on a splendid effort.

Mr. Carrington: I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester). He has piloted the Bill through with considerable skill. The Bill is timely because it will be of general application—and specific application to eastern Europe, an area with which we have great historical and cultural ties. Its attitudes to democracy can be expected to be similar to our own and its structures will benefit enormously from being able to call on the expertise of British local government.
It is impossible to run a functioning system of democracy without that democracy permeating to the lowest levels of society, and working effectively there. It must permeate all activities in the public domain, as well. That is the area in which this country has a great deal to offer others.
That assistance must be given at other countries' request, however, not at our insisting. Only they know what they need for their democracy. We can provide the extra technical assistance to enable them to achieve their self-defined democratic goals, and that is what the Bill does. Hence, I strongly support it; I congratulate my hon. Friend and I look forward to the Bill's successful passage through another place.

Mr. Nigel Evans: I am grateful to have the opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) on his important Bill. It is tempting to say that we should of course automatically give countries in need of assistance the help that they need. Not so; when canvassing one's constituents, one often hears them say. "We have our own problems here. The money you spend on overseas assistance should be spent on this country." I do not share that view. Emerging democracies are fragile flowers which need oxygen to survive. If we, through our work here, can give them part of our oxygen, they will grow and blossom.
In the past, I was sceptical. I was on West Glamorgan county council for six years and made it clear from the start that I would not go on any foreign trips. During my time there, I did not take any such trips although there were opportunities to do so. The discerning electorate will be able to see whether local authorities are abusing the privileges that the Bill will grant them to assist emerging countries. They will know whether the system is being used or abused.
The Bill will banish the jolly-junket image and every pound will be invested properly to assist emerging overseas democracies. When I was a councillor in West Glamorgan, many of the areas that I represented were twinned with other towns and villages. Some of the boards and banners in our towns and villages suggest that it would be easier to state the places that they are not twinned with. However, twinning gives valuable two-way information. We, as well


as the countries that we are assisting, will benefit from contact. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe and have great pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr. Tony Banks: I associate the Opposition with all that has been said about the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) and his excellent Bill. We are delighted at its progress and wish it fair wind in another place. When I listen to the hon. Gentleman in Committee and in the House, I realise what a thoroughly decent person he is. He has the distinction, the badge of merit, of being one of the first Ministers to be sacked by Mrs. Thatcher when she became Prime Minister. That was because he is such a thoroughly decent person.
I was interested to hear that the hon. Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale) accompanied Lady Thatcher to deepest, darkest and ice-bound Russia and that she was greeted by members of the local Communist party. They recognise a good old Stalinist when they see one and if they ever wish to restore Stalinism, Baroness Thatcher will be an excellent person to take over and consult.
We have had many clashes in the Chamber over the role and functions of local government: we gently touched on a few of them today. Many Conservative Members have local authority backgrounds. I am a passionate believer in the role of local government, which has been sorely undermined since 1979 by many Conservative policies. The Prime Minister recently spoke about the need for partnership between local and central Government and about the need to move away from the acrimonious past. We all say, "Hear, hear" to that, but we want to see action by the Government; otherwise what the Prime Minister said will remain mere words. So many powers have been taken from local government and it has been so sorely undermined that not just words but Government action are needed to remedy all the past attacks. Without that, I am afraid that our local democratic structure will remain fragile.
There is much to be proud of in what is left of local government in terms of its structures, democracy and traditions and, in terms of what we have been debating,—its expertise. It is little wonder that east European and other countries have turned to our local authorities for assistance in the areas that hon. Members have mentioned in this short Third Reading debate. Long may those requests come in and long may we be able to extend that expertise, tradition and everything else that is good about local government to countries elsewhere, and especially in eastern Europe, that are struggling to enjoy the light of democracy.
Local authorities need to do a great deal to assist emerging democracies. The hon. Member for Broxtowe was correct when he said that we must not say, "We will assist you only when you are a fully fledged democracy." One could argue that our democracy is not as fully developed as we want it to be, and we have had many generations of practice. It is a little much to expect emerging democracies in eastern Europe to make an enormous leap in a short time. They need help and encouragement, and that is precisely what the Bill is about.
Governments must do more. I was delighted by what President Clinton said about the G7 and its role in helping President Yeltsin in Russia. In the same context, I was not happy to hear what our Foreign Secretary said in Washington—that policies to assist would simply not be justified at the moment because of the economic position in Russia. We need to assist at both national and local level.
The hon. Member for Broxtowe said that he hoped that the Bill would receive a fair wind in another place and that it would receive Royal Assent before the summer recess. I am confident about that. I somehow feel that the Maastricht Bill will not reach the statute book as speedily as the hon. Gentleman's excellent measure.

Mr. Robin Squire: I suspect that I shall be the last Member in the debate to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) on his good fortune in winning the ballot, on choosing the Bill and on his skill in guiding it through its various stages today and in previous proceedings. I also congratulate hon. Members who have taken part in our proceedings. Anyone reading the reports of the Second Reading and Committee debates will be struck by the depth of expertise displayed by all hon. Members. That reflects well on the House.
The Bill has the strong support of Government and local government. I am pleased that it is strongly supported in all parts of the House. Its purpose is to clear up the confusion that exists over local authorities' powers to provide technical assistance overseas.
The needs of such assistance, and local authorities' capacity to provide it, were brought home to me last week when I attended and spoke to the Council of Europe's Standing Conference of Local and Regional Authorities annual conference in Strasbourg. Progress in some of the east European countries—Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic—is encouraging, and they are gaining local government experience and skills rapidly. I believe that the assistance of our authorities and other western European authorities has played a significant part in this.
All this modest but self-evidently useful and good work has been put in jeopardy by the doubts that have arisen over local authorities' powers. The only way to remove those doubts is by primary legislation and that is why the Government, and the local authority associations are so grateful to my hon. Friend for agreeing to take on this Bill. Indeed, one of the features of the whole history of the Bill has been the close co-operation and constructive dialogue between central and local government. I might add that this is one example of many which illustrates the improving relationship between us, which the press and—dare I say it—even at times, Labour Members seem unaware of, or choose to ignore.
The Bill is a short and relatively simple measure—a "minor" piece of legislation. It will not grab headlines, but it will enable our local authorities to help communities of all sizes in other parts of the world. It will help in the provision of vital assistance to eastern Europe, but it will also help in the wider world. Who can look at the television pictures coming out of Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia and Angola without wishing that there was something, however small, that we could do to help the ordinary people of these countries? Local government matters. It matters here in Britain. How much more important it must


be in countries struggling to achieve the basic level of stability and organisation necessary to begin to save and improve people's lives. In passing the Bill, hon. Members on both sides of the House will be doing something that allows our country to make a positive contribution to the world we live in and to help those of our fellow men and women who are so much less fortunate than ourselves. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Protection of Animals (Scotland) Bill

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Bill Walker: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This is a small but important Bill. It will bring the penalties imposed in Scotland into line with those imposed elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I begin by thanking Ministers and officials at the Scottish Office, who helped me by amending my original Bill until it became the Bill that I introduced. The House will realise that, without that assistance and support, private Members's Bills have little chance of getting through the House. I also thank Opposition Members who assisted me in Committee arid who encouraged me to promote the Bill.
The Bill has the support of all political parties on the Scottish scene and I believe that it will be welcomed by all who have an interest in the care of animals. There is no doubt, particularly given some of the recent evidence of the maltreatment of animals, that the penalties in Scotland should be brought into line with those of the rest of the United Kingdom.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the Bill, but there is a danger in just homogenising the penalties in Scotland and those in England for the sake of it. We have a different situation and we should be careful. Our penalties might be greater or smaller or better or worse, but I do not like homogenisation of either penalty or law.

Mr. Walker: My hon. and learned Friend, who is a practitioner in these matters when I am not, understands the problems that are faced in court. I am a simple chap and I should not like to think that someone who wished, as some appear to, to maltreat animals—particular), horses, in which my children have a great interest—might feel that if he popped across the border to commit the crime, the penalty would be more lenient. That is why I thought it important to align the penalties in this instance. I accept what my hon. and learned Friend says about the importance of our retaining our different laws in Scotland.
All those who are interested in the welfare of animals will, I feel, welcome the changes.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: The Labour party supports the Bill and we welcome the move made by the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) in introducing it. We agree that cruelty to animals is contemptible and inexcusable and that the penalty should reflect the seriousness of the offence.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I think that I can speak briefly in tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), who has introduced an important Bill. I am glad to have the opportunity to speak in the debate on the Bill, which deals with an important aspect of animal welfare. I strongly congratulate my hon. Friend on his initiative in introducing it, with the support of the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. As my hon. Friend said, the Bill simply increases the maximum fine for an offence of cruelty to animals


under the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912 from level 4 on a standard scale, which is currently £2,500, to level 5, which is currently £5,000. This will bring the maximum fine in Scotland into line with that which applies in the rest of the United Kingdom, which has been at level 5 since the introduction of the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1987. That, too, was a private Member's measure, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway). The Government considered at that time whether the increase in penalties introduced by that measure might be extended to Scotland. Unfortunately, that would have required an amendment to the long title, which would have seriously delayed its passage.
The Government's position has been that we would be prepared to support an increase of the maximum fine in Scotland at the next available opportunity. As the House will appreciate, pressures on the parliamentary timetable meant that such an opportunity for a Government measure did not arise.
There is, of course, no requirement for identical penalties—I take up the point of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn)—to attach to equivalent offences in the different jurisdictions within the United Kingdom. Indeed, between 1912 and 1987, the maximum period of imprisonment for the equivalent animal cruelty offences was six months in Scotland and only three months in the rest of the United Kingdom. We wish, however, to send a firm and clear message to those who might be considering acts of cruelty to animals that the courts should have the ability to impose a substantial fine in appropriate circumstances. I know that issues of animal welfare generally have raised a great deal of public interest in recent years and that general concern exists throughout Scotland about cruelty to animals. There are several issues related to animal welfare about which many hon. Members have, understandably, strong views.
It would be remiss of me to talk about cruelty to animals in the context of the Bill without paying a strong tribute to the work of the SSPCA, which initiated and supports the Bill. The work of the society is crucial in ensuring the protection of animals. The evidence of its inspectors is often instrumental in securing the conviction of those involved in offences of cruelty to which the higher penalty that the Bill will introduce would apply.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: As the Bill protects horses, we should remind those who think that they are protecting foxes that wounding horses is not advancing non-cruelty to animals.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I accept absolutely that cruelty to horses should be visited with severity.
The SSPCA undertakes work beyond seeking prosecutions for offences of the type with which the Bill will deal. It acts to ensure that the welfare of animals at markets, breeding establishments and boarding places is catered for properly. In particular, it operates 10 welfare centres throughout Scotland to provide vital back-up to the inspectors. It has an important role in educating members of the public, especially young people, in the better care and welfare of animals. I congratulate the society on the

success of its work. I am sure that all hon. Members will join me in wishing it continued success in all its worthy areas of activity.
There is an immense amount that I could say, but I shall say only a little more. There is unanimity of support throughout the House for the Bill. I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North and welcome the support of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe). I emphasise the Government's wholehearted support for the Bill and the increased penalty that it contains. I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing it and I hope that it will continue to have a swift and uneventful passage.

Mr. Hartley Booth: It is often said that politicians are animals. Of course, that is entirely untrue. There are, however, such creatures as political animals, but I am sure that no animal would ever choose to have all-night sittings.
I welcome the Bill, which is an example of the way in which the House has legislated repeatedly to stop cruelty to animals, to protect animals and to demonstrate that right hon. and hon. Members are animal lovers. There has been a huge rise in the incidence of cruelty to animals. It is sad that that has happened after 100 years of the RSPCA and its Scottish equivalent, which has been praised in the debate. There was a 27 per cent. rise in Scotland during the last recorded year and a similar rise in England in 1990–91.
It is difficult for an English Member of Parliament to speak in a debate on a Scottish Bill. However, this is an important issue and Scottish legislation often goes on to become English legislation—for example, legislation on alcohol abuse was introduced in Scotland in 1981 and then in England in 1986. Therefore, it is often useful for English Members to speak on Scottish Bills.
This is the Bill's Third Reading, so it cannot be amended, and I am not suggesting that it should be. However, it contains an unsatisfactory element on which, perhaps, the Scottish Office could help by issuing guidelines. I refer to the substance of the Bill—punishment. All those involved in the drafting, proposing and debating of the Bill are opposed to cruelty to animals, so it behoves us to get the element of punishment right.
In 1912, when the previous Act reached the statute book, there was a more primitive attitude to punishment. It was thought that the only appropriate punishment was a fine or imprisonment. Sadly, those alternatives are repeated in the Bill. In our more enlightened and experienced time, we should go beyond those alternatives wherever possible. For example, we should consider compensation for those whose animals have suffered. Indeed, the theme, "Always think of the victim", would benefit the criminal justice system.
We should consider forfeiture of, for example, items of equipment used in the torture of animals. We have all read the horrible stories about that. It may be that some poor animal has been kept incarcerated in a van——

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: All the penalties to which my hon. Friend has referred are already available to courts in Scotland.

Mr. Booth: My hon. and learned Friend is right. I was about to come to that point.
As those punishments do not appear in the text of the Bill, they should be the subject of Scottish Office guidance. The sheriff and other courts would then automatically put them at the top of the agenda when sentencing.
There is another matter on which the Scottish Office should consider issuing guidance. It is the classic case where those who are likely to commit the offences referred to in the Bill have jobs. Such offenders should, in these more enlighted times, be put in weekend prisons, so that they may keep their jobs, pay substantial compensation, and support their families.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: And pay a fine.

Mr. Booth: Yes, as my hon. and learned Friend says. Those and other penalties should be considered automatically by the courts, but be discretionary in every case. However, the guidelines should be clearly spelt out by the Scottish Office. I hope to see that practice repeated south of the border.
We are in times of change and while I support the Bill in every way, I recommend further work by the Scottish Office to support those people who want greater enlightenment in respect of punishment.

Bill read the Third time, and passed

Orders of the Day — Carrying of Knives etc. (Scotland) Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered. Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Phil Gallie: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
It is my privilege to rise for a second time today to address the House, and to present a second, important Bill—one which will be welcomed by many people in Scotland.
The Bill has the support of every party represented in the House, and I hope that that support will continue and that the Bill will clear its final stage today. It was amended in the Second Scottish Standing Committee earlier this week.
The urgent need for the Bill was reflected in amendments tabled in Committee by Opposition Members. One amendment from the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) disposed of the two months waiting time that would normally follow Royal Assent. I had some reservations, because those two months represented the preparation time that is built into virtually all legislation; it allows solicitors, courts and the police to prepare for new legislation. However, the hon. Member for Dumbarton was right about the urgent need for the Bill to be enacted, and I was pleased that the Committee was able to accept such an amendment.
If the Bill receives its Third Reading today, the police prosecution service and all in the Scottish legal criminal procedure chain should take note now, and be prepared to implement its provisions.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I apologise to my hon. Friend for the fact that, owing to illness, I was not able to attend the Committee to which he was gracious enough to appoint me. Having read the proceedings of the Committee, I feel that the House should be reminded that under the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, section 1 of which applies to Scotland, there is a penalty of two years' imprisonment—which is greater than any penalty imposed by the Bill. My hon. Friend may not accept the view of the law taken by my hon. Friend the Minister or me, but I have argued frequently that section 1 of the 1953 Act is qualified by subsection (4) and therefore any instrument—be it a knife, axe, tin, mace, or even the Speaker's head—carried for an offensive purpose requires the accused to explain why he is carrying it and to prove that he is not carrying it for an offensive purpose. That is the present law, punishable by two years' imprisonment. The House and the country ought to be reminded of that fact.

Mr. Gallie: I thank my hon. and learned Friend. I am aware of his concerns and have looked into the matter long and hard. I recognise that my hon. and learned Friend has far greater experience than I. However, having taken advice, I still believe that the 1953 Act does not cover the carrying of these weapons.
My hon. and learned Friend referred to the fact that if an individual carries an axe, he will inevitably be faced with punishment. In my constituency, however, when an individual, a well-known worthy, was picked up with an axe in his possession his defence was that he intended to use it to scrape the wallpaper off his mother's walls. He got away with that defence. That is unacceptable to the people of Scotland, either in the streets or in their homes.


Therefore, we are trying to correct the deficiencies in the 1953 Act. With the greatest respect to my hon. and learned Friend, I suggest that he ought to look into that incident.
If the Bill is given its Third Reading today, it will lead to important messages being got home. One of those messages is that every thug who carries a blade will risk having a very severe penalty imposed on him. The provisions of the Bill would lead to a two-year term of imprisonment, which I welcome. The onus is not now, as it was in the past, on the courts to prove intent. That onus is now on the thug and, perhaps more significantly, on the carrier of the knife to prove that he had reason for having a blade in his or her possession.
My first speech today was intended to include an element of humour when seeking the approval of the House for the Third Reading of the Licensing (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill. I feel no humour and I display no humour as I speak on the Carrying of Knives, etc. (Scotland) Bill. I refer to the fear, anger, and the lack of understanding of every law-abiding Scot. They are all mystified and disillusioned by the evidence of the violence on our streets. All too often, that violence is not just on our streets; it is to be found in the home. Many elderly people, living alone, fear being violently attacked by people who gain illegal entry to their homes.
People parade our streets carrying threatening weapons. At present, however, they cannot be prosecuted. Carving knives, axes and Stanley-type knives can be carried without the fear of automatic prosecution. That is what we are trying, by means of the Bill, to prevent. I have referred to the Scots, but in this United Kingdom of ours it is not just the Scots who live in Scotland; the English, the Welsh and people of many other nationalities reside in Scotland. All those who live in Scotland feel under threat.
Before I deal with the details of the Bill, I ought to provide some statistics. They highlight the problems in my region of Scotland. They also highlight the growing tide of violence elsewhere. I am critical of a tendency that has built up since the 1960s of Governments going soft on crime. Figures for the United Kingdom demonstrate that other countries also have problems. I draw attention to some figures for murder and attempted murder in countries worldwide and compare them to figures that I have obtained for London. For example, the rate of murder in Los Angeles and New York runs at some five or six times the level of that in London. The figures for attempted murder and crimes of violence in Los Angeles and New York far outweigh the figures in London.
It is not simply in the United States. The figures for South America are absolutely horrendous. In Canada and Australia, we also see the trend. There are a few countries in which the same trends are not reflected—one of them is Japan. I cannot offer reasons why that should be so, but it would be worthy of investigation. Other countries that do not reflect the same trends include Saudi Arabia in the middle east. I wonder what effect the seriousness of penalties has on deterring crimes of murder and attempted assault and a whole range of perhaps petty crimes in such countries.
What about Strathclyde and my region of Ayr? I have looked at the figures for the five years between 1988 and 1992. The figures for murder show that the reasonably level playing field has gradually risen over that period. In

1992, the figures had almost doubled. For crimes involving the use of knives and blades, the figure rises by an amazing 135 per cent. There is something deeply wrong which fills me with concern. I express the feelings which came out in Committee.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: In case my hon. Friend does not know, invading another person's house to assault them is an additional crime in the law of Scotland of hamesucken. The reason why knives started to be used historically in Glasgow and elsewhere is simple: previously, people slashed others with a razor. When Lord Carman started sending people down for 14 years for razor-slashing, they used a lethal weapon rather than one which only wounded.
I appreciate my hon. Friend's spirit, vigour and purpose. I emphasise that the Prevention of Crime Act—I have appeared some 500 or 1,000 times in section 1 cases—covers matters which the Bill covers with a two-year penalty.

Mr. Gallie: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his intervention. When he comes to the point at which he is defending these people, the prosecution system has decreed that there is a case to answer. Under the 1953 Act, the Crown must prove that there is an intent to use or that the weapon has been deliberately converted to be used for violent means. At present, it means that the prosecution service does not take the case to the point at which my hon. and learned Friend would be involved. There is a well-recognised requirement. I see that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) is nodding her head in agreement.

Mr. Bill Walker: Although clever legal minds such as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) turn their cleverness properly to the assistance of those who are charged, as a layman who knows little about these matters, I should be happy with belt and braces for the prosecution. If the belt is suspect, it is a good thing to add the braces.

Mr. Gallie: I agree. We must acknowledge that the people whom we aim to protect are the public—the law-abiding people who want to do nothing other than live in their homes and walk the streets without fear of their life or of assault. That is the aim of the Bill. I hope that the House will go with me.
Other figures show a massive rise in Strathclyde in instances of attempted murder. The use of blades and knives has risen at an astronomical rate in the past year. There has also been an escalation of serious assaults. We must send out a message from the House. If nothing else, the Bill will send out just such a message. That underlines the need for the Bill. Originally, the Bill sought to equate Scottish law with the law in England and Wales under section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. As amended, the Bill creates more appropriate sentences to suit the scene in Scotland as it is seen by Scottish Members of all parties. Scottish Members were unanimous in Committee.
Prison is now seen as a justifiable penalty for carrying a weapon. Opposition Members highlighted anxiety about overcrowding of prisons during the Committee stage of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Bill. I welcome their change of heart on the issue. I recognise that they made justified comments in that Committee, and the fact that Opposition Members pressed for the measures in this Bill underlines the strength of feeling. I welcome that,


just as I welcome the agreement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Home Office to allow the Bill to be amended.
Perhaps further reviews of punishments could take place. I said in Committee that some older punishments could be effective. I might be slightly out of step with other hon. Members. I referred in Committee to the stocks. I accept that perhaps the stocks have had their day. I do not contemplate a return to the stocks of old in which criminals were placed on the street and had eggs and apples thrown at them. I do not see that as the way ahead.
However, we could have modern-day stocks. We live in a high-tech age. We have television. The bully and those who carry knives and blades and use them depend on their macho, hard-man image. Perhaps we should consider punishments that undercut their standing among their contemporaries. Perhaps we could use the television to do that.
In Committee the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) said:
The saddest aspect is that it is often the most vulnerable members of society who are threatened with knives and weapons. Frail, elderly pensioners who live alone, particularly ladies, are most at risk. What sort of inhuman being threatens an old lady in her 80s or 90s with a knife?"—[Official Report, Second Scottish Standing Committee, 23 March 1993; c. 11.]
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We should let the public see what kind of person does that. Perhaps we could use television as part of the sentencing process so show society's abhorrence at what they have done, which may reduce their standing with their contemporaries. I believe that it is worth considering.
I know that I will not receive the agreement of hon. Members about other forms of punishment. Last Wednesday, the European Court endorsed the use of the cane in schools. That represented a change of direction and a new, enlightened vision. I emphasise that it is not relevant to the Bill, but it is perhaps a thought for the future.

Mr. Nigel Evans: I, too, welcomed the European Court's ruling allowing private schools to use the strap because of the lack of discipline in our schools and in the fabric of our society, which has led to the depths that we now have in many parts of the country. Does my hon. Friend agree that following the court's ruling we should reconsider the reintroduction of corporal punish-ment in the state sector?

Mr. Gallie: I welcome my hon. Friend's intervention——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I do not think that we can go into corporal punishment this morning.

Mr. Gallie: I would never disagree with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I said that the issues were not relevant to the Bill, but I welcome my hon. Friend's intervention and take his point.
I should like to review the background to the Bill. The Prevention of Crime Act 1953 covers people who carry weapons with intent to use and weapons that have been designed to cause physical harm. In recent times, the courts, the prosecution service and certainly the police have not always been able to use that Act. The Bill, as amended, rectifies that issue.
Some of the Bill's provisions replicate the Criminal Justice Act 1988. For example, the Bill allows certain defences. One can carry a blade in public if it can be shown that the individual is clearly en route from place of work to base—home or another works premises. A blade can be carried for religious reasons. That defence was incorporated for Sikhs, who carry small blades in their turbans, in order to preserve their rights. There may be other instances of which I am not aware.

Mr. Matthew Carrington: One aspect of the Bill causes me some concern. I am a rather enthusiastic amateur cook who cooks a great deal. In common with most cooks, I am determined to use my own knives when I cook. Cooks get very used to their knives, which are especially sharp. When I cook somewhere other than at home, I carry a collection of knives with me. Cooking is not my work, but my entertainment. However, the knives could be pretty vicious things in the wrong hands. I have a 10-in cook's knife and a 12-in boning knife, both of which are razor sharp and could perfectly happily fillet individuals as well as joints of meat. I should hate to think that people like me in Scotland would no longer be able to enjoy the gentle entertainment that I enjoy.

Mr. Gallie: On this rare occasion, we in Scotland are lagging behind people in England. My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) describes the law in England. I suggest that cooking is not only a leisure pursuit, but a form of leisure work. As the law seems to have caused him little difficulty until now, his mind will be completely at rest when we in Scotland come into line with England. It will cause us little difficulty either.
The exceptions also include an exception for a person who is carrying a blade as part of his national costume. My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and I on occasion wear with pride our national costume and we do not intend to change. The Bill allows us to do so.

Mr. Bill Walker: My hon. Friend will be aware that he and I have, interestingly, been accused of not wearing the correct national costume, although I shall not go into detail on that. I am in no doubt about the fact that the skean dhu is part of our national costume. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that I was responsible for ensuring that the Criminal Justice Act 1988 included a provision to allow Scots to wear the skean dhu in England. I am sorry that I have not been successful so far in Dallas, Texas where I was arrested for carrying a knife. One can carry as many guns as one wishes in Dallas, but one is not allowed to carry knives. We still have some way to go, although I thank my hon. Friend for including this exception in the Bill.

Mr. Gallie: Once again, we are all indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North for enlightening the House. He put forward his views when the Criminal Justice Act 1988 was going through the House. I was not aware of any questions having been raised about my wearing of the national dress, although I have been aware of some questions about his wearing of it. That is his business and I shall go no further.
Clause 2 provides powers of stop and search. There is no need for concern about that. In Scotland such powers already exist for dealing with an individual who is thought to be committing an offence. When we create a new offence


in a Bill, we must give powers in relation to that new offence, and that is the intention behind clause 2. As a result of an amendment, clause 3 provides that the Bill should come into force immediately after Royal Assent.
The Bill is but a small—I emphasise "small"—step in the fight against thugging. No one conceals the fact that much more needs to be done. There are many reasons for investigating the roots of violence on our streets and the actions of some—a small minority—of our citizens. The Bill is a step in the right direction, and marks another item to be chalked off the list of our manifesto commitments—perhaps ahead of programme, but not before time.
I have a shopping list of activities, as, I am sure, do other hon. Members. We may need a major review of criminal legal procedure in Scotland, but I make no apologies for this first small step. We must keep the battle going. A Scottish phrase is appropriate, as the hon. Member for Maryhill will no doubt agree: "Many a mickle maks a muckle". By jove, we need this mickle now, and a muckle more in the future.
I thank the individuals involved in preparing the Bill—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State in another place and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who has been a tower of strength to me in recent weeks. I thank the supporters who have backed the Bill, and the Opposition Members, particularly the hon. Member for Dumbarton who have given support. Their contributions to the debates in the House have certainly given everyone something to think about. I also thank the Scottish Office officials who helped to prepare the Bill and provided a great source of strength to me.
I hope that the Bill will proceed without opposition. The people of Scotland will be eternally grateful to the House if that happens.

Mr. Bill Walker: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) on his success in introducing the Bill. Lengthy debates and changes took place in Committee, and I believe that the resulting Bill will contribute substantially to overcoming the ever-growing problem of the use of knives in a offensive manner. For a Scot to have two Bills on Third Reading on a Friday in Parliament must be a record. I have no recollection of that happening before and I think that my hon. Friend may have a contribution to make to the "Guinness Book of Records".
Whatever may be said about my hon. Friend's dress and mine, I am sure that we dress alike. The misinformation being spread by odd sources is quite wrong. I wear the Scottish national costume regularly as I am proud of my ancestry, and it is important to ensure that we do not impede people who are properly dressed. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr for including such a provision in the Bill.
It was important to recognise the problems that have occurred in the courts. I have no wish to cross swords with my hon. and learned Friend from Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn)—his constituency is next door to mine—but it has been clear to all of us who have been looking at the

problems in the Scottish courts that something was not quite right. I hope and believe that the Bill, if it becomes law, will help to redress the balance.

Lady Olga Maitland: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) on introducing the Bill. I have a particular interest, in that I am a patron of a charity called the Why? campaign, whose founder, Bill Dennison, suffered a grievous loss when his son John was stabbed to death. It has become acutely obvious that young people are increasingly carrying knives, careless of the damage they can do.
These knives have become a scourge, associated with the sort of macho image that young men like to foster. They go out in the evenings carrying car keys, wallets and knives as if the latter were part of their masculinity.
This culture of knife-carrying has led to an enormous increase in the number of deaths from sharp implements. In the past four years, the numbers of such deaths have risen by 25 per cent.
In Standing Committee, the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) tried to move an amendment to make the Bill cover 3-inch pocket folding knives. Gruesome evidence was given of victims who had died from wounds less than three inches deep. Such wounds can reach the chest, heart or lungs and can prove to be mortal. There is no evidence, however, that such injuries are caused by penknives or pocket knives. Much larger weapons are needed to cause them.
In any ease, the people who carry small folding pocket knives are not usually the ones likely to be committing an offence. It is the people who carry larger weapons who are more likely to inflict injury.
There is no evidence in the south that pocket knives are giving rise to concern. As my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) said, knives can be innocently carried for other purposes, such as cooking or whittling wood. Every self-respecting cub and boy scout knows how to handle a pocket knife. They are a part of everyday life.
There is a mythical story that Zsa Zsa Gabor kept a drawer full of pocket knives as presents for her admirers, knowing that the knives would remind them of their childhood.
We are trying to draw attention to the serious knife carrying which can lead to mortal injuries. I welcome the efforts that have gone into the Bill. When educating young people, we must emphasise to them more than ever that knives are highly dangerous and will not be tolerated in public.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I was somewhat alarmed to hear the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) explain his notion of further steps that he might consider taking to achieve a muckle out of today's mickle. I will be listening carefully to his future proposals for updating the stocks and bringing back caning, but he cannot rely on our support for any such moves.
The Opposition welcome and support the Bill——

Mr. Bill Walker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but does she wonder where the Scottish National party is today? Its Members pretend in Parliament to defend Scotland's interests, so why are not they here today to discuss this important Bill?

Mrs. Fyfe: The members of the SNP do a great deal more talking about supporting Scottish interests than acting for them.

Mr. Gallie: In all fairness—and, as everyone knows, I am very fair—an hon. Member from the Scottish National party voiced support for the Bill and was one of its listed supporters. I should not like the position to be misrepresented.

Mrs. Fyfe: I shall leave it to the members of the SNP, all three of them, to work out whether they should have been here for this debate.
We wholeheartedly support the Bill. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), who had the idea originally. Hon. Members will recall that when he raised the issue the Government claimed that they could not find time for it because of the time taken by the Bill on Maastricht. There followed such an uproar in Scotland that the Government were forced to change their mind. Instead of having the generosity to support the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton, I am sorry to say that they chose to bring in a Bill of their own and place it in the hands of the hon. Member for Ayr. (Mr. Gallie). Nevertheless, I welcome the hon. Gentleman's action.
The Bill matters a great deal to people in our communities. It arises from our people's anger and sorrow at the lives that have been thrown away. We are determined to get to grips with this evil in our society. No one should have to walk the streets of our cities in fear and it is appalling that young and otherwise law-abiding men start to think about carrying weapons in case someone, perhaps crazed by drink or drugs, attacks them for no reason. As the hon. Member for Ayr said, women feel especially vulnerable to attack and will greatly welcome this move to increase their safety on the streets and at home. Many people are vulnerable in many ways, especially the elderly and those who, because of racial or other prejudice, feel under particular threat.
An alarming number of the knives that were handed to Strathclyde police during its recent amnesty initiative and the knife produced in the Chamber a few weeks ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) are vicious instruments of death and no one could pretend otherwise. It would be foolish for society to permit the carrying of such weapons and to render our police unable to take appropriate action to secure the safety of the public. I do not think that Maryhill police are entirely likely to believe some Ned walking along the street with a collection of knives who says, "Actually, officer, I am on my way to cook up a cordon bleu meal." Such a story might be more readily believable if it were told by some other member of society.
Conservative Members are aware that although we support the Bill we retain some worries. We all know that a 3-inch blade can kill, as any incident and emergency department in our hospitals will testify. I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) is not in his place. He may feel that the law as it stands is entirely satisfactory, but it is quite obvious to those of us who read in our daily newspapers about vicious attacks by knife-wielding thugs that the law is certainly not adequate to deal with such thugs and deter them from carrying blades. When such Neds can laugh at the law, it is time for society to do something about it.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I am grateful for the opportunity to respond briefly to the debate. Once again, the Scottish National party is conspicuous by its absence. We should have a great deal more respect for SNP Members if they took the trouble to turn up for important debates, especially those on law and order on which there is strong feeling throughout Scotland.
I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) that the Bill contains a defence provision. Clause 1(4) states:
It shall be a defence for a person charged…to prove that he had good reason or lawful authority for having the article with him in the public place.
My hon. Friend's good intentions in this matter, as an able cook with great culinary skills, would be respected by all concerned, both south and north of the border. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) was correct. There have been no problems with the provisions relating to 3-inch blades so far. We shall monitor the effect of the provisions carefully and, if it is necessary to take further action, we shall take it, but so far there is no evidence that that is so.
My hon. Friends the Members for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) are right in their reply to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn). I have told my hon. and learned Friend that he is a brilliant man, but he is not always right. Nowhere is that more clear than in his assertions in relation to the Bill. The weakness in his argument, which he put only an hour ago, is that a knife is not necessarily classed as an offensive weapon under the provisions of section 1(4) of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953. For a knife to be classed as an offensive weapon, the prosecution must first prove that the person intended to use it to cause personal injury. If the prosecution cannot prove the intent to cause injury, a knife is not an offensive weapon, so the 1953 Act is not relevant and is insufficient to deal with the problem that is facing the nation. Under the Bill, it would not be necessary to prove intent. Actual possession would be sufficient and that would be a deterrent.
I agree that there is a growing tide of violence and that we need to take strong action to confront and deal with it. Violent crime is all too common today. It disfigures the lives not only of the victims and their families but of the wider community. People change their way of life in response to concern about violent crimes. They fortify their homes, they go out less frequently, they try not to travel alone and they avoid secluded places.
Law-abiding citizens should not have to live in such fear or to consider taking such precautions. They should be able to live their lives in safety and security. That is why we place the maintenance of law and order among our highest and most important objectives. It is why we will continue to ensure that the police and the courts have the powers and the resources to tackle crime, particularly violent crime, and to protect law-abiding citizens.
Since 1979 police numbers have increased by 1,100 officers. Over £500 million a year is spent on policing in Scotland. That represents a massive investment in law and order and reflects our full support for the police.
Despite that, it is sadly true that the number of homicides and the number of attempted murders have been rising. In Strathclyde the number of homicides rose


from 55 in 1991 to 92 in 1992, while the number of attempted murders rose from 126 to 201 over the same period.
Knives figured prominently in these assaults: they were used, for example, in over half of last year's homicide cases in Strathclyde. I commend Strathclyde police for their initiative in launching Operation Blade. I also welcome the support given to the "Bin a knife" campaign by STV and other sections of the Scottish media. That touches on what my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr said about the modern equivalent of the stocks. What television portrays is extremely important in that connection.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I apologise to the House for not having been here for all the debate, but I have been engaged in a series of interviews concerning the circumstances surrounding the death of four very young children in my constituency yesterday. Will the Minister confirm that new guidelines will be issued to both the police forces and the police college concerning the powers given to the police? What kind of publicity exercise will be initiated by this most welcome Bill?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Guidelines and training of the police will be revised to take account of the new measures that we are introducing and the police will receive the fullest possible training. I hope very much that what we decide today will be taken full note of by the media in Scotland.
For our part, the Government have come to the view that the powers of the police and the courts need to be strengthened in relation to the prevention of indiscriminate knife carrying. We promised in the Conservative party manifesto to
tackle the scourge of the indiscriminate use of knives to wound and kill on our streets.
We gave a commitment to
create a new offence to make it unlawful for anyone to have in a public place any article with a blade or a sharp point.

There will, of course, be an exception for my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North wearing his skean dhu when he puts on highland dress.
The key feature of the Bill is to make it an offence to carry a knife or any other article with a blade or sharp point without good reason or lawful authority. There would be no need for the prosecution to prove, first, that the person involved intended to use the knife. It would simply need to prove that the person had the knife in a public place. It would then be for the person concerned to prove that he had lawful authority. The Bill will enable the police and the courts to deal with an enormous number of people who carry knives before those knives are used to damage or end innocent lives.
I will say a few words about the penalties that are proposed. When the Bill was introduced, the maximum penalty available on summary conviction was specified as a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale—that is £1,000. However, when the Second Scottish Standing Committee scrutinised the Bill, it was clear that the Committee considered that, in the light of great and entirely legitimate public concern, the Bill should specify the same penalties as those contained in the 1953 Act—in other words, to provide for a maximum penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both. The Government share the Committee's concern that the new offence and the consequent powers of the police should be available at the earliest opportunity. In all cases, the onus of proof will lie with the knife carrier.
Against the background of rising public concern about violent crime, I believe that the Bill will serve an invaluable purpose. It will prove to be a useful and effective extension to the range of powers that are available to the police and the courts. It meets the terms of the Conservative party's manifesto commitment. I am sure that it will help authorities to act in a preventive manner to reduce the number of assaults taking place on our streets. I welcome the Opposition's support for the Bill and I strongly commend the measure to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Newly Qualified Drivers Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Simon Burns: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
It gives me great pleasure to move the Second Reading of a Bill which started life as a ten-minute Bill; the vagaries of the parliamentary timetable have made it possible. I accept and understand that it would be unfair and unrealistic of me to expect the Bill to be given a Second Reading today. That is because we have only 40 minutes to debate an important and complicated issue. As several hon. Members wish to make known their views and to submit possible improvements, it would not be right to expect such a measure to be rushed through the House.
I appreciate that the Department of Transport is studying carefully ways of improving road safety. I suspect that the Bill may be a few months premature. None the less, I hope that it will open up a discussion that will help the Department in its deliberations.
I must offer an apology to the House, especially to my hon. Friend the Minister. I regret that I shall have to leave the House early because I need to get to Chelmsford for an important engagement. As I am driving, I want to get out of London ahead of the rush hour traffic so as not to miss some appointments that have had to be postponed to enable me to be in the House this morning.
I have introduced the Bill against the backdrop of a relentless campaign by the Government and motoring organisations to make driving and our roads safer and to reduce deaths and injuries on our roads. Yesterday, the Department of Transport published figures showing that the number of road deaths had fallen, once again, to 4,273. Of course, that figure is far too high, but it is a remarkable improvement on the figure in the mid-1960s, when it was almost double that. During the past few years, there has been an inexorable reduction in the number of deaths, and that has been due to the Department's activities. The figure announced yesterday was the lowest since 1926, yet there are now 14 times more vehicles on our roads. I congratulate successive Ministers on their devotion to and success with campaigns——

Mr. Michael Stern: My hon. Friend is falling into the trap of having been in this place too long. Surely, the principal credit for the reduction in driving accidents should go to the motorists.

Mr. Burns: My hon. Friend is right in that it is up to motorists to be sensible and careful and to avoid accidents. However, it would be churlish to take away from Ministers and motoring organisations the credit for the way in which, with single-minded dedication, they have concentrated on the issue and sought not only to highlight the problems facing motorists as the drive, but to use campaigns to target specific areas such as drink-driving. Without that, I suspect that the figures announced yesterday would not have been so low.
The purpose of my modest Bill is to contribute to making roads safer and drivers better equipped and more confident when driving. As I have said during previous debates on this matter, during the past 25 years there has been a revolution in motoring. Improved living standards have ensured far wider car ownership. Instead of the norm being one car per family, it is now more likely that two cars

or even more are owned by members of one family. Advances in technology, design and engine power have made cars far more sophisticated and powerful.
More than 29 million people have licences to drive cars. In 1988, 1·39 million people passed their driving tests, of whom 73 per cent. were aged between 17 and 25, 21 per cent. between 26 and 40 and 5 per cent. between 41 and 60. Surprisingly—indeed, staggeringly—0·3 per cent. were over 60. That intrigues me. As I shall explain later, newly qualified drivers do not necessarily mean young drivers.
I am an Essex man, in that I have the honour to represent an Essex constituency. I am pleased to see here today my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London, who is an Essex man, as are my hon. Friends the Members for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) and for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin). They may feel some affinity with a small article in the Daily Mail today, entitled "Essex girl, 83". The article said:
A woman of 83 who sparked a major search when she vanished from her old people's flat"—
in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar—
…in nightclothes was found two hours later—in bed with an elderly man next door.
I accept that that has nothing to do with motoring, but if elderly Essex girls have such enterprise at the age of 83, who knows how many other enterprising Essex men and women will want to learn to drive and pass their driving tests at the age of 83? My Bill would apply to them no less than it would to youngsters of 17 to 25.

Mr. Eric Pickles: This matter is of deep concern to my constituents. The case that my hon. Friend mentioned is by no means exceptional behaviour for the people of Brentwood and Ongar. Indeed, it would be a matter for national comment if my constituents in their 80s were not to show that degree of vivacity and joy of life.

Mr. Burns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is the epitome of a fun-loving Essex man.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the diligence with which he is presenting his Bill. Does he think that the lady in the aforementioned article—an Essex girl, as he rightly called her—could have been on the hormone replacement therapy recommended by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman)?

Mr. Burns: It seems to me that the Essex girl to whom I referred is in no need of hormone replacement therapy—but if problems were to arise, she will know doubt know to contact my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay, who I am sure would be more than happy to give her plenty of advice, to ensure many more years of joyful fun.
On a more serious note, the statistics that I gave before we were diverted by Essex girl made it abundantly clear that the majority of newly qualified drivers are aged between 17 and 25. The casualty figures for 1991 highlight another serious problem. In that year, drivers aged between 16 and 19 who were killed accounted for 4·6 per 100,000 of the population. The figure for those aged between 20 and 29 were almost unacceptably high, at 4·5 per 100,000. For age groups above that, the figure fell dramatically, to an average 2.2 per 100,000.
Those statistics are reinforced by a recent study by the Transport Research Laboratory of the Department of


Transport on the attitudes, opinions and development of skills among novice drivers in the first two years after passing their test. It showed that 28 per cent. of respondents had been involved in at least one accident as a driver. Twenty-five per cent. of those had been driving for only 12 months, 27 per cent. for 18 months, and 35 per cent. for 24 months.
Thirty-three per cent. of those involved in an accident had been involved in an injury accident. From their own estimations, 34 per cent. of those drivers felt it likely that they would be at least partly to blame if they were to have an accident as a driver during the first 12 months of their driving careers.
The report also highlighted the fact that those who had been driving for two years had higher scores on confidence in decision making than those who had been driving for a shorter period. That group also reported more frequently failing to notice a pedestrian waiting at a crossing, failing to use their mirrors when they should, misjudging, trying to beat other drivers on a getaway from traffic lights or in other stationary situations and taking other action that they knew might be dangerous.
Interestingly, the report showed that the proportion of new drivers involved in an accident between 18 and 24 months after passing a test was greater than the proportion involved between 12 and 18 months after passing one. Those statistics prove that there is a serious problem in respect of newly qualified drivers and road safety.
My Bill introduces measures to improve road safety for not only newly qualified drivers but other drivers and innocent pedestrians. The problem partly emanates from the fact that inexperienced drivers, as soon as they pass their test, are given the same privileges and rights as drivers who passed their tests more than 20 years ago and who have since gained experience and maturity. To my mind, that must be rectified.
My Bill aims at bringing greater safety and protection to newly qualified drivers and to others who share the roads with them. As I have said before, newly qualified drivers are not exclusively under the age of 25. They can be any age, through to the ages to which I referred earlier.
Clause 1(4) would make it law that a condition of granting a full licence would be that for two years after the passing of that test, the newly qualified driver would have to display a sign on his car noting that he was a newly qualified driver, in the same way as learner drivers have to display an L-plate before they pass their driving test. The type of display to be used would be left to the Secretary of State, but it is obvious that it should be something like "P" for provisional or, if one did not like that, perhaps "R" for restricted. We may quibble over the letter of the alphabet, but that would be the principle. Power would be given to the Secretary of State, who, after consultation, would come up with the right letter. My choice would be "P" for probationer.
P-plates for probationers would be a constant reminder to newly qualified drivers that they are newly qualified, that they do not know it all and that they do not have the experience of other drivers. It would also serve the useful function of drawing the attention of other drivers to the

fact that they are in the vicinity of a newly qualified driver. They could then be more considerate and take more care with their driving.
It is interesting to note that the Transport Research Laboratory report shows that more than half the respondents felt that to require newly qualified drivers to display a special plate to let others know that they were inexperienced would prevent a great many accidents. Some may say that such a proposal is unenforceable, I do not share that view. I suspect that when L-plates were introduced for learner drivers, many people said that the proposal was unenforceable. Experience since then seems to be that the system works well.
Clause 2(1) would make it an offence for newly qualified drivers not to display their P-plate or their R-plate for the first two years after passing the driving test. Failure to do so would contravene the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. The maximum penalty on conviction would be at level 3 on the standard scale, which is a maximum fine of up to £1,000—the same penalty as is currently imposed on those who are convicted of failing to display a L-plate if they are learner drivers.
Clause 1(5) would amend the Road Traffic Act 1988. Any newly qualified driver would, for the first 24 months after passing his or her test, have to drive a vehicle of no more than 1300 cc.

Mr. Pickles: Can I ask my hon. Friend for his advice on engine size? Mine is a rural constituency. My constituents use large vehicles, such as Land-Rovers and diesel cars. A sensible choice for a young person who had just passed his driving test would be a diesel car. The Bill would discourage the use of a sensible form of transport. There has been a great increase in car ownership, but many families have only one whose engine size is usually greater than 1300 cc. The Bill would mean that newly qualified drivers would be unable to drive the family car and obtain the experience that my hon. Friend wants them to obtain. Therefore, two years after passing their test, precisely the problem that my hon. Friend has identified would arise.

Mr. Burns: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. With his usual perspicacity, he has anticipated my next point. I accept that this is the most controversial and potentially the most difficult part of the Bill. I hear what my hon. Friend says, but it is important not to lose sight of the fact that the purpose of the Bill is to improve road safety. One could find exceptions to, or plead a special case for, many of the measures that we pass. I believe that 1300 cc represents a respectable level of engine size for it not to become a major problem for the majority of families. Nevertheless, I accept that it may cause some problems for some families. One could argue that a one-car family might have only a series 7 BMW. It would be slightly odd to allow a 17-year-old to drive a series 7 BMW which belongs to his or her mother or father.
In theory, 17-year-olds could pass the driving test on their birthday and leave the test centre in a Porsche, a series 7 BMW or some other high-performance car. If they got into difficulties, they would not have the experience, maturity or capability to handle the car in the same way as a more experienced driver and avoid an accident—possibly a fatal accident.

Mr. Jenkin: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Burns: No, I have little time. I accept that it is a difficult position. If the Bill were to reach the Committee stage, the matter would have to be examined carefully because one does not want to be ludicrous and over-extend the law. One must give serious thought to how newly qualified drivers can cope with road safety, which is a primary concern to everyone. New section 102A(2) specifies that those who are restricted to driving cars not exceeding 1300 cc would have that specified on their driving licence to help with the enforcement of that provision.
As hon. Members will have noticed from reading my Bill carefully, no penalties are specified in clause 2 for an offence that is committed. The reason for that is deliberate. To get it right, we must not make the law look an ass. We must produce a law that is enforceable and rational. At this stage, it would be preferable for a Committee to consider how we can get it right with the most realistic proposal and the most realistic penalties for those who contravene the law.
I accept that the Bill will not get on the statute book because it comes much too late in the parliamentary timetable. However, if it raises awareness of the problems facing newly qualified drivers, if it goes some way towards improving road safety in the United Kingdom and if it raises a serious debate about road safety and provokes discussion of ways to improve the safety of newly qualified drivers, others on our roads and innocent pedestrians, who may be seriously affected through injury or death, it will be worth while.
As I said earlier, the Minister's Department is carrying out an ongoing study of ways further to improve road safety and the position of newly qualified drivers. All hon. Members must welcome the Department's work. We await publication of the Minister's White Paper and ideas which can be put out to consultation and, if necessary, result in legislation.
My Bill is a step in the right direction. It will bring more maturity and the opportunity for newly qualified drivers to gain experience on the roads. It will give more protection to other drivers and pedestrians and make people think more about how to make our roads safer for everyone. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Matthew Carrington: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns). It is a remarkable feat to get this Bill from a 10-minute rule Bill through to Second Reading. It is such a remarkable feat that it is hard to remember any other instances in which such a progression of events succeeded. My hon. Friend the Minister has achieved the same remarkable distinction, and I congratulate him on that.
The Bill is to be highly commended. It has the most remarkably worthwhile objective of improving road safety. That is an objective to which all Members of Parliament dedicate many hours of their working lives. Although fewer people are killed on the roads now, the roads in Britain are still far too unsafe and we need to do more to make them safer.
One of the great problems of road safety is undoubtedly the difficulty of other drivers in identifying motorists who are not fully in control of their motor car, so it is right that my hon. Friend has introduced a Bill which would enable an inexperienced driver to be readily identified by other

road users and avoided or given enough room. Other drivers would know not to anticipate that such drivers could cope in the difficult situations which can arise on the road.

Mr. Stern: My hon. Friend is rather more complimentary than I might be about the driving standards of drivers who come across a newly qualified or learner driver. Without wishing to poor-mouth my driving standards any more than my family would consider necessary, I am not sure that my reaction when confronted by a learner driver is to make things easier for him. My reaction, which I am told is not abnormal, is to get away as fast as possible, if necessary by accelerating as fast as possible past that driver. Does that necessarily contribute to road safety?

Mr. Carrington: I am sorry to hear that intervention from my hon. Friend. He must be unusual. But I know him well and I imagine that his comments are driven—if that is the right word—by modesty. I know him to be a kind and courteous man. For all that he might not want to get too close to less experienced drivers on the road, I am sure that he would get past in such a way as to ensure that their progression down the road was safe and easy for them so that they could learn. I am sure that my hon. Friend does himself less than justice.
The Bill is an extension of the principle that has been observed since the 1930s that a learner driver should display an L-plate. My hon. Friend's Bill is a natural progression from that. I suggest that we could equally benefit from other classes of road users and drivers being required to display a sign showing what they were.
We have just been hearing about road hogs, not that I suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-west (Mr. Stern) is a road hog. People who had been convicted of being road hogs or unsafe drivers should perhaps also display something on their car. People convicted of drink driving who had just got their licence back could also be required to display something on their cars. The principle could be extended to all sorts of groups.

Lady Olga Maitland: Is my hon. Friend aware that the concept of a restricted driving licence or plate is not novel to the British Isles? Northern Ireland has them. An R-plate restricts a driver in speed and other matters. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will say how effective the scheme has been in the Province.

Mr. Carrington: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. She is right. We have other plates in this country. For example, the diplomatic corps, who are a noble and trustworthy body of people, display a D in the middle of their number plate. Any other drivers using the road know full well to steer clear of a car with a diplomatic number plate because if they have an accident with it their rights as citizens of this country will be severely reduced.
It is a well-established principle that certain classes of road user must identify their presence for the safety of other road users. One could wish to bring a number of other groups into such a category, to the point where most road users would have to display a sign on their car identifying themselves for the benefit of others.
I have to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford that I have one or two worries about the Bill, some of which were mentioned by our hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles). He


mentioned people who need cars with engines above a certain size. Cars that have a larger engine size may be inherently safer than those with small engines. One thinks, for instance, of the three-wheeled vehicles, which have small engines——

Mr. Tony Banks: What has the hon. Gentleman got against Reliant Robins?

Mr. Carrington: I have nothing against them at all. A Reliant Robin requires skill and understanding to drive. It is the sort of car to which people should aspire once their driving skills are such that they can cope with the challenge. The Bill should provide that only experienced drivers should aspire to driving such cars.
The other problem is that a foreigner—I am thinking particularly of someone from the United States of America—who intends to live here permanently and wishes to drive on the roads must pass an English driving test. He or she may be an extremely experienced motorist, but the moment they took their test they would have to display a "P" on their car and may have to buy a car with a smaller engine.

Mr. Burns: Does my hon. Friend accept that the vast majority of foreign drivers will not have experience of driving on the left hand side of the road? However experienced they are at handling a car, they may experience great difficulty in getting used to driving on the left hand side, with the associated problems of turning at crossroads and using roundabouts.

Mr. Carrington: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I look forward to discussing that in Committee and I hope that my hon. Friend's pessimism about the likelihood of the Bill going into Committee is ill-founded. We must debate such issues.
Does it take two years to learn to drive on the right or left hand side of the road? Should a British motorist be allowed to drive in France without displaying a sign on their car?

Mr. Burns: They have to display a "GB" sticker.

Mr. Carrington: Even before the Maastricht Bill, once we joined the European Community motorists no longer had to display those stickers.

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): If I recall correctly, my hon. Friend's dear lady wife has been through precisely this experience.

Mr. Carrington: Indeed. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. My wife is American and she went through that great trauma. As hon. Members can imagine, marrying me was a trauma, but it was made worse by the fact that, having been a driver for 20 years, she had to pass another driving test.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that when our European neighbours come to this country, their cars have foreign plates which enable us to work out whether the driver is from Germany, from France or from Italy? We normally give such cars leeway simply because we see the foreign plates and because of the problems already mentioned.

Mr. Carrington: That is right. The Bill proposes nothing revolutionary. It is an extension of the fact that we identify cars by looking for signs such as whether the steering wheel is on the right or the left, whether the driver is smoking a pipe—or wearing a sharp suit, to pick up a point made in an earlier debate. We look for signs of potential problems.
I strongly recommend the Bill to the House, but I make one suggestion for improvement. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford said that he felt that the right sign to have on the back or front of a car, where the L-plate now is, would be a P-plate. I can see the argument for having letters and we can discuss in Committee whether to have P, S or some other letter, such as D for danger.
I suggest that it would be more appropriate to have not a letter, but a picture which would make the whole process more flexible. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford will realise the merit of what I am saying. Someone who has been disqualified for drink-driving and who gets his licence back could, for the next three, five or 10 years, display the sign of a foaming tankard on the back of his car, which might be a considerable discouragement. Similarly, a driver who had had a road accident could display a sign of a crash which might also be a considerable discouragement. One could extend the principle to those whose cars had been clamped or to those who had not paid parking fines. The potential is enormous and I hope that my suggestion will be considered.

Mr. Harry Cohen: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has just put up taxes on petrol, a suitable picture for him would be of a hand in somebody else's pocket?

Mr. Carrington: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is making a serious point. His comment is extraordinary in that he is, I know, absolutely dedicated to preserving our environment and to stopping the misuse of carbon energy resources which is so dangerous in terms of global warming. Far from wishing the Chancellor to carry a sign which, I am sure from the description, would be for the purposes of vilification, the hon. Gentleman should wish the Chancellor to be identified as somebody who has contributed significantly to saving our planet. I am sure that my hon. Friends join me in that wish.
I am straying a long way from the Bill and I am sure that you will call me to order before long, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall now make a point that will be vital for the whole process. At present, L-plates have to be tied on to cars with bits of string or stuck on with Sellotape which destroys the finish. Under the Bill, we should make it a condition that all motor cars are designed to have a card holder on the front and the back so that, as the motorist progresses, the appropriate sign can be inserted to demonstrate the stage of his or her development as a motorist. That is another matter to be discussed in Committee. I look forward to the debates in Committee, which will be important for road safety. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford and I wish the Bill well.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington), who developed a number of important arguments. My hon. Friend said that the Bill might require


the modification of motor vehicles at the point of manufacture to allow a plate to be displayed on the vehicle as required. Unfortunately, I believe that such action may be beyond the Bill's scope. It would also require European legislation, as national legislation for the approval of changes to the manufacture of motor vehicles is governed by, and falls under the exclusive competence of, European law. Therefore, we would be unable to legislate on that.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on presenting his Bill so ably. The principle of the legislation has an entirely laudable aim. New, upstart young Members of Parliament like myself are allowed, on their first outing, a maiden speech, during which other hon. Members are advised by the Chair or convention to avoid running into them or upsetting them. They give us a wide berth so that we can complete the process without damaging or injuring anyone.
I have a number of concerns about the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford made it absolutely clear that the issue of the plate would be one for the Committee or the Secretary of State if the Bill becomes law. However, the use of the letter "P" could be open to misinterpretation, particularly if we move to a system such as that recommended by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, in which "P" could be seen to stand for a poor or pathetic driver.
I believe that "N" for novice would be a more appropriate plate. The "N" could stand for new, novice or "newly qualified" to reflect the Bill's title. If the system is expanded, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) might have an "A" on his plate to stand for aggressive driver—if that is not being unfair to him. I note that he is nodding. We might have "C" for careless or "E" for expert—we could develop the concept of driver labelling to inform others in a variety of ways. The letter "A" for aggressive is attractive as it is a reversible letter. The driver of a car in front could read it in his mirror to give him an idea of the sort of person driving behind, not just in front.

Lady Olga Maitland: Does my hon. Friend agree that all the discussions about putting plates on cars are somewhat beside the point? We should really be discussing the introduction of a suitable restriction such as 45 mph speed limit, or—as in New Zealand—a ban on carrying passengers so that teenagers do not show off, or not allowing driving at night. We should be considering elements to discipline newly qualified car drivers.

Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention, which leads me to the next part of the Bill: the restriction on engine size—the only restriction currently proposed in the Bill—about which I am anxious. I used to work in the motor industry for the Ford motor company. I did so when the then Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced restrictions on engine size relating to the taxation of company cars. It caused great distortion in the car market and it was a relief to the motor industry when the restrictions were altered so that the engine size restriction no longer applied.
When the restrictions on engine size applied, some privately owned car fleets—not those of my employer—adopted a system called badge engineering. The fleet manager, more than anyone else, used to indulge in the process and ensure that the badge on the back of his car

suggested that the car's engine was below 1800cc—other documentation might also lend weight to that suggestion. The car driver would know that he was driving a car with a larger engine and would not want the taxation authorities or his boss to know that he had a better car than the boss.
This leads to the problem of the enforceability of engine sizes. It might be impossible for the police to know whether a car had an engine bigger than 1300cc. I recall using my father's car many years ago. Its engine was considerably larger than 1300cc, although it was not a BMW 735—hon. Members will know the sort of salary my father had to live on.[Laughter.] Nevertheless, because it was my father's car, I took great care of it. I was far less likely to damage it than I would have been had I driven a cheap banger of my own with a small engine. So restricting engine size might not achieve the intended result.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my hon. Friend remember that a Reliant Robin was caught speeding at well over 70 mph? The owner had souped up the engine. Robins present challenge enough to drive and they must be somewhat worse with souped-up engines.

Mr. Jenkin: I remember the newspaper stories about that. It amply demonstrates some of the difficulties that might be involved in applying this restriction to newly qualified drivers.
I emphasise that this measure has great merits which deserve serious debate. I hope that all hon. Members who want to speak on Second Reading will have the time to do so. I end with a few remarks about foreign drivers. We can see from the signs on the back of their cars that they are foreign—and clearly inferior drivers. We know from watching foreign buses manoeuvring round Hyde Park what a risky business that can be, so the principle behind the Bill has a proven track record and I hope that the House will continue to give it lengthy and sober consideration.

Mr. Nigel Evans: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) has introduced the Bill. The intention behind it is right: to reduce the number of accidents on our roads and to reduce the numbers of people killed, maimed or injured on them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford said that a great many 60 and 80-year-old people are learning to drive these days, but I want to talk about the number of accidents caused by younger people.
The idea of putting a letter or symbol on the back of a car to identify a newly qualified driver is right. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) said that people in Northern Ireland in this category have to display an R plate. It has proved extremely successful.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Common sense might suggest that, but no research that I have been able to find shows that it makes the slightest bit of difference. The problem has been properly identified, but the solution to it has not—certainly not by this simple method.

Mr. Evans: Research has shown that the number of accidents caused by young, learner or newly qualified drivers in Northern Ireland has fallen significantly.
In this country people are not obliged to carry their driving licence with them. How long a person has been driving can be determined by the licence. If such a person is stopped and asked to produce his licence within three days at a police station, there is nothing to prevent him from giving the wrong name and address to the police officer and asking somebody else to furnish a licence to a police station that is many miles from the scene of the incident. It would be difficult to enforce the measure, although it opens wide the door to the introduction of identity cards, a measure which I favour for reasons other than enforcing the proposed legislation.
It is rather anomalous that a newly qualified driver is allowed to build up 12 points in the same way as someone who has been driving for 20 years. A newly qualified driver should initially have a lower points limit, perhaps four, so that if he causes an accident or breaks the law in some other way he can lose his licence far earlier and have to retake the test. That would be better than being allowed three or four accidents before the licence is removed.
Education should also be more widely used to warn of the dangers of speed on the roads. The advertising industry has much to answer for. Some vehicles are advertised in a way that will attract people who wish to drive fast cars. Time and again, the fast car is presented as the vehicle for virile young men to prove their masculinity on the roads. That is wrong and other drivers are placed in danger by the emphasis on such cars.
Education in the home is also important. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) said that members of his family comment on the quality of his driving. It has been proved that competent drivers—I am sure that that describes my hon. Friend—influence members of their families who are learning to drive. People tend to imitate some of the habits of their parents on the roads. Parental persuasion is therefore important.

Mr. Stern: The picture conjured up by my hon. Friend is mind-boggling. On the principle that he advocates, if my daughter emulates her parents while being driven by them she will look around the car for another back-seat driver.

Mr. Evans: I am sure that many people suffer from a similar problem. More discussion is needed of the measures that are necessary to reduce the number of incidents and accidents on our roads.

Lady Olga Maitland: I welcome the Bill because the time has come to take a much more disciplined approach to newly qualified drivers. We should seek examples in Northern Ireland and overseas. For instance, Germany applies strict rules under which the licence of a first offender is taken away and he has to resit the driving test. The authorities in Australia are extremely tough on young drivers. That is right because most offences are caused by teenage boy racers and the time has come to stop them racing and showing off. If we can clip their wings we shall do a great service for mankind because fatalities in the 16 to 19 age group is disproportionate to all other age groups. I hope that the Bill receives a fair wind, if not today on another occasion. Perhaps it can be reintroduced later. The time has come to take a firm grip. What do we mean by allowing newly qualified drivers on the roads without any supervision or restriction?

Mr. Michael Stern: I intend to be brief. Given the time, I will be brief. However, I wish to make two points. The first, which has not yet been made, concerns the showing of signs on the vehicle. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) gets as confused as I do by the multiplicity of signs on the backs of cars. I am a little worried, and he will have to be careful about how the Bill defines the regulations——

It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Debate to be resumed what day? No day named.

Orders of the Day — Remaining Private Members' Bills

DECLARATION OF WAR (REQUIREMENT FOR PARLIAMENTARY APPROVAL) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 23 April.

HOMICIDE (DEFENCE OF PROVOCATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 23 April.

PENSIONS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 23 April.

MARITIME SAFETY BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 23 April.

JUSTICE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 23 April.

DRUGS ENFORCEMENT BILL

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Not moved.

EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION (PARENTAL LEAVE) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 23 April.

REGULATION OF WHEEL-CLAMPING BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 23 April.

NATIONAL SCHOOL HEALTH SERVICE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 23 April.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (AMENDMENT) BILL

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

HOUSE PURCHASE (SIMPLIFICATION) BILL

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

CHRONICALLY SICK AND DISABLED PERSONS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 23 April.

WEDDINGS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 23 April.

HARE COURSING BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 23 April.

EUROPEAN UNION (PUBLIC INFORMATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 23 April.

HUMAN FERTILISATION (CHOICE) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 23 April.

ENERGY CONSERVATION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 2 July.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Wednesday 31st March, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Orders No. 14 (Exempted business) and No. 15 (Prayers against statutory instruments, &c. (negative procedure)), the Speaker shall not later than Seven o'clock put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Lang relating to Legal Aid and Advice (Scotland) and on such of the Motions in the name of Mr. John Smith relating to Legal Aid and Advice as may then be moved.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Thursday 1st April, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 9 (Sittings of the House), the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister for the adjournment of the House shall not lapse at Ten o'clock and may be proceeded with, though opposed, until Eight o'clock in the morning, at which hour, unless proceedings thereon have previously been concluded, the Motion shall lapse.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN STANDING COMMITTEES

Resolved,
That European Community Document No. 4608/93, on the prices for agricultural products and on related measures, 1993–94, shall not stand referred to European Standing Committee A.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Orders of the Day — Points of Order

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point of order is about the availability of papers for Monday's debate on coal. You will recall that yesterday, as reported at columns 1233 and 1234 of Hansard, the President of the Board of Trade referred to the French interconnector.
Following those exchanges, I asked the Library whether I could be provided with a copy of that


agreement. I have been advised by the Library that the agreement consists of the original protocol, which was signed in 1981, and subsequent commercial agreements. None of the commercial agreements is in the public domain. The original protocol has never been made public either, although part of one of the articles was quoted in a recent report from the Select Committee on Trade and Industry.
The report of the Committee, which was published on Wednesday 2 December 1992, contained a quotation from article 14 of the protocol. The White Paper that is the subject of Monday's debate makes numerous references to the French interconnector between pages 55 and 58, as well as references to the protocol. The report of the Select Committee is of considerable importance in the context of Monday's debate, and it makes extensive comments also on the protocol and the subsequent agreement.
Bearing in mind the vital interest in the French interconnector, the agreement and the protocol, which have never been made available or published, and bearing in mind also the direct quotations in the report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, I urge you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and perhaps Madam Speaker, to reflect on whether the protocol and all the subsequent agreements relating to the French interconnector should be made available in time for Monday's debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I am sure that the hon. Member realises that the occupants of the Treasury Bench will have heard his point of order. Presumably they will act accordingly.

Mr. Harry Cohen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) has raised a most important matter. I heard what you said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, about my hon. Friend's point of order being heard by those on the Treasury Bench, but there is a ruling that if documents are referred to on the Floor of the House they should be provided subsequently. They certainly should be provided for the debate on Monday. There is a great deal of political capital——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That rule applies only when there is a direct quotation from a state paper.

Orders of the Day — London Taxis

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Mr. Vivian Bendall: First, I declare an interest; I represent the London Taxi Drivers Association. My representation is listed in the Register of Members' Interests. In this instance, however, I am not representing only the association. I believe that I shall be speaking for the vast majority of black-cab drivers in London. Therefore, this is a significant debate.
I initiated the debate because of the speculation that has recently appeared in much of the national press and the London evening press. I refer especially to an article that appeared on 2 March in the Evening Standard, which said:
Mr. Norris has now decided to impose the same minicab regulations in London as the rest of the country.
That is causing great concern and distress to most of the black-cab drivers in London, who now number about 20,000.
I am sorry that I have had to bring my hon. Friend the Minister into the Chamber on a Friday afternoon; I appreciate the onerous duties of a Minister. However, given the distress that has been caused to London taxi drivers, I felt that it was necessary to bring the matter to the attention of the House.
I begin by referring to a report from the Department of Transport working party on the safety of users of taxis and minicabs in London, which was published in July 1992. Paragraph 23 states:
If the Government were minded to propose a two-tier system of licensing in London, we believe that it should first look hard at the provincial system and any difficulties being experienced there.
That is the crux of the matter. When we consider what is being experienced in Birmingham and other parts of the midlands, it is clear that many problems are being caused by the 1976 legislation. It was interesting to note that Tony Cross, a trading standards officer in Birmingham, recently said that he believed tht the only real way to work in the provinces was to have a one-tier system.
There is fear that my hon. Friend the Minister will begin to introduce a two-tier system for the licensing of black and minicabs in London. That would be a slippery slope. It would give minicabs an air of respectability that they have not had previously. Everything comes down to what the driver of a licensed black cab has to do. Many people do not understand that he has to put in an immense amount of effort to obtain a green or yellow badge, and in particular the green badge. He has to do the knowledge for two years. Then, once he has acquired his vehicle, it has to be inspected twice a year.
If the minicab is to be licensed and given that air of respectability, there will be not a level playing field, but a two-tier system, and slowly but surely we shall see the decline of the black cab. I shall explain how that will occur as a I develop my argument.
My second point, which is of paramount importance, is that one of the major problems in London, as elsewhere, is illegal touting by minicab drivers. Although that is illegal, there are only five enforcement officers in London, so touting continues unabated and unchecked. If the minicab driver is given a licence, and the air of respectability that goes with that, people will be even more confused.
Currently, the police appear unable to stop that plying for hire; nor can they stop the ranking that occurs, for example, outside clubs and theatres. There is continuous touting at large railway stations, especially at weekends. The problem was recently highlighted when the police decided to purge Victoria station, which resulted in a great number of convictions. However, usually there is not sufficient enforcement to prevent that practice.
If we go down the slippery slope of a two-tier licensing system, London will experience the problems currently being experienced in areas such as Birmingham, where there are taxi wars and violent disputes not only between minicab drivers and black-cab drivers, but among the various members of the minicab trade. That will happen in London, but at 100 times the level in the provinces. The 1976 Act has failed for a number of reasons. We need to create a system that will resolve the problems once and for all.
The black cab has been part of London's heritage since the days of the hansom cab. It has successfully competed throughout the century. It is part of the London scene and part of the heritage of this great city. Like the Tower of London, Buckingham palace and Westminster abbey, the black cab is part of the London scene and a great tourist attraction. It is also part of the integrated London transport system. What incentive will there he for black-cab drivers to continue buying a black cab and to do the knowledge? A purpose-built cab costs £24,000. One can easily buy an ordinary new car to use as a minicab for £8,000, or a second-hand vehicle for as little as £3,000 or £4,000. If there is no future for the black cab, that will be a sad day for London and for a trade which has given great service to the capital over many decades.
Another problem results from the evolution of the radio cab, which allows taxis to be booked by telephone—particularly for company contract work. That business might start to die because there would not be fair competition. Black cab fares are set by the Government, but minicabs charge whatever they like. One could soon see the demise of the contract sector, with all the consequences that would follow. If drivers were compelled to move away from radio-circuit work and had to ply for hire on the streets, that would add to the likelihood of cab wars of the kind seen in Birmingham and elsewhere.
The black cab also contributes significantly to helping the disabled, with their ability to accommodate wheelchairs. That facility is not generally available in minicabs. The demise of the black cab would bring problems for the disabled. It has long been Government policy to ensure that the disabled have an opportunity to use black cabs and that every black cab will be able to accommodate wheelcharis by the year 2000.
The provision of that facility has increased the price of the black cab, quite apart from the original cost of developing it. Sir Peter Baldwin of the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee and Ann Fry have done immense work to help the disabled and are very much against the likely consequences of any diminution in the black cab. Dial-a-Ride and Taxicard users are opposed to a two-tier system.
One must consider also the disastrous effect on black-cab production. It is a British-produced vehicle. Given the erosion of our industrial base over the years, it would be sad to see yet another part of it lost. The LTI and Metrocab have worked unceasingly to ensure more success for the black cab. In the past two years, LTI production

has fallen 50 per cent. My hon. Friend the Minister may argue that some of that was caused by the recession, but from speaking to black-cab drivers over the past few months, I know that much of it is the result of uncertainty about the future of the trade.
Drivers are not buying new black cabs because of that uncertainty. Half the work force at LTI have been made redundant over the past year and if black-cab production stopped altogether, the rest of the work force would be made redundant—as would large numbers of workers in the black-cab spare parts and service industries.
I appreciate that the Minister faces a great dilemma. I appreciate also the work of the Suzy Lamplugh Trust to improve ladies' safety. The black-cab trade believes that ladies who travel with them must be properly protected. Therefore, it would be disastrous if the black cab trade, as we know it, in London were to come to an end.
Diana Lamplugh and others have rightly pointed out to me that we must also consider the safety of drivers, whether they be minicab drivers or black-cab drivers. Many black-cab drivers have been shot, knifed or viciously attacked. We must, therefore, take account of their safety, too. The black cab provides safety for the driver. If one talks to black-cab drivers, one finds that the panel between driver and passenger is of paramount importance to them.
I urge the Minister to set up a commission to inquire into the problems faced by the black-cab trade and the minicab trade in London. If he did that, we could address immediately the issues relating to ladies' safety, as well as all the other issues. For far too long, we have tampered and tinkered with the problem.
In 1990, I argued during our proceedings on the London Local Government Bill that the black cab should be saved. The report of a working party on the safety of users of taxis and minicabs in London came to no firm conclusion. If the Minister sets up a commission, it should be given clear terms of reference and asked to consider how these problems should be dealt with.
I hope that the Minister will not put the cart before the horse by announcing that he intends to start a two-tier system. I hope that he will announce a full investigation which will satisfy the Suzy Lamplugh Trust and result in taxi drivers and the people of London feeling safe. If he does that, we shall preserve one of our finest trades—a trade which, for many generations, has provided a great service to Londoners.

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr, Bendall) on his customary assiduity in prosecuting the interests of the licensed trade. I welcome to the debate my hon. Friends the Members for Romford (Sir M. Neubert), for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) and for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), all of whom I know take a close interest in these matters. I see on the Opposition Benches my hon. Friend—for such he is—the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who is my shadow on transport matters, as well as the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd).
In 1991, my predecessor, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin), set up a working party, whose terms of reference were
to make recommendations on the framework needed to ensure that users of taxis and minicabs can travel in reasonable safety and security.


Last July, I received the working party's report. It has been widely circulated and was duly deposited in the Library. Following on from it, I have considered carefully, with the assistance of many interested parties who have spoken or written to me, whether any changes to the structure of the London taxi and minicab trades should be made.
I had intended to make an announcement by the end of last year. For the record, I should say that, in an attempt to do full justice to the complex issues involved, my deliberations, and the work of my officials, have taken me beyond that original time scale. My hon. Friend and other hon. Members will agree that it is important that the solution is the right one and not a superficial answer simply for the sake of speed. I hope that I shall be in a position to make an announcement definitively by the middle of this year. My hon. Friend will appreciate that, having said that, I am not prepared to be drawn at this stage on speculation about my plans, whether in the Evening Standard, the taxi press or anywhere else.
In the meantime, it might be helpful if I set out the current position and described the principal factors that my review has addressed, involving potential solutions that have been put to me. Before I do that, I shall take this opportunity—as we are debating taxis—to make an important point on fares and fees. Taxi fares in London are strictly controlled by the Secretary of State for Transport. They are reviewed annually on the basis of an agreed formula which is in two parts: an average earnings index and a range of costs associated with operating a cab—classically, licence fees, spare parts, fuel and so on. Today, I can announce that all London taxi fares will rise by 20p for each journey from 24 April. That is an average increase of just over 4 per cent. and takes account of the increase in fuel duty in the Budget.
As I said, one element of the fares formula relates to fees paid to the Public Carriage Office for taxi and driver licensing. An increase from £81 to £87 in the fee for a London taxi driver's licence will take effect from 24 April and has, accordingly, been incorporated in the fares increase. Of course, a London taxi driver's licence lasts for three years. There is to be no immediate increase in the fees for licensing taxis.
My hon. Friend will know that the working party to which I referred recommended that regulation should be introduced to cover so-called minicab operations in London, but the diverse nature of the interests represented on the working party meant that it could not agree on what form the controls should take. The taxi trade in London, which is fairly well known for its strength of feeling on most issues, understandably had ideas about the future structure of the trade. Having spoken to many of its representatives, it is clear that they rightly feel a great sense of pride in their trade.
The debate to which my hon. Friend referred was—if my memory serves me—the last time that we debated the licensed trade. In that debate, I joined him in expressing appreciation for the great worth of the licensed trade to our city. I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise that it is part of the attraction which London offers to tourists from around the world who, almost uniquely in London, can approach a taxi in the secure knowledge that they will be taken directly to the place that they wish to go—regardless of whether they

have any idea of where it is—that they will be charged a fair fare and that they will be dealt with courteously and with respect. That is a unique advantage and one which I never fail to mention when I get the opportunity, as do hon. Members on both sides of the House. I have made it clear time and again that I have no intention of harming that London taxi trade when I address the problem identified by the working party.
The London Taxi Board has been energetic in promoting the concept of a one-tier licensing system, not least to right hon. and hon. Members of the House. Such a system would require both taxis and minicabs to be subject, essentially, to the same conditions of licensing. The argument is that that would give all users the same protection. After all, taxis and minicabs offer similar services with the widespread use of radio making it sometimes difficult to distinguish between the two.
Those who advocate a single-tier system refer to the safety aspects of taxis as opposed to minicabs. As I said earlier, taxi drivers are subject to stringent checks of their criminal background and medical fitness. They know the geography of London and their vehicles are comfortable and safe. One of the most important factors in favour of the black cab is its capacity to carry a disabled passenger in a wheelchair. Since 1 February 1989, all new taxis licensed to work in London have had a requirement to be wheelchair accessible. The whole fleet will conform to that specification by the year 2000. That is just another way in which transport in London for the disabled sets a standard to be followed in cities all over the world.
The issue of safety in minicabs is a serious and emotive one. We have seen reports in the media of women being assaulted by bogus minicab drivers or driven to an isolated spot, robbed and abandoned. We all know that we must take that issue extremely seriously. We are also all aware and may even have had experience of the touts who stand outside mainline railway stations, theatres and clubs touting improperly for work. They deny that work to the licensed trade, which has invested a great deal of its time and money to acquire the unique right to ply for hire. I am keenly aware of the problem that that represents for the police in enforcing the law. It is worth making that point absolutely clear.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North will agree, the problem is that the touting law dates back to the days of horse-drawn carriages and makes it almost impossible for a conviction to be obtained without the corroboration of the often reluctant passenger who, after all, often simply wants to get home.
The safety problem is simply stated. Many companies that offer so-called minicab services are well managed and responsibly operated. Many minicab drivers are, of course, decent men. They have clean driving licences, they drive sensibly, they drive vehicles that have passed an MOT test, they are in perfectly good health, they have a perfectly adequate idea of where they are going and the area in which they work and they have no material criminal convictions.
However, unfortunately, while the law makes it an offence not to have a driving licence or to drive a vehicle not in a roadworthy condition, and while, arguably, a detailed topographical knowledge of London is not necessary on many journeys, the one thing that the law cannot guarantee in London, unlike in the rest of the country, is that the driver does not have a serious conviction for an offence that would disqualify him in the


eyes of any sensible person from being allowed to take a single, vulnerable person in his car. The Suzy Lamplugh Trust has frequently drawn attention to that and I commend it for its assiduity in so doing. I recall a speech made by Baroness Hollis of Heigham, who speaks for the Opposition in another place. She accurately and movingly described the situation that a vulnerable person may face in the back of such a vehicle.
The availability of taxis and minicabs in London is another important factor in the wider debate. We might have the best taxi service in the world, but it is not always easy to get a taxi. Hon. Members can go outside to a particularly attractive spot at the Members' Entrance where we can attract a taxi at most times of the day and night. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North and I represent adjacent and similar constituencies. In those parts of London, as, indeed, in many suburban areas, taxis are in short supply or in practice do not exist at all. It is in serving suburban passengers that the informal so-called minicab arrangement has come into its own. Offices outside railway and tube stations and the freephone services that I see occasionally at supermarkets are becoming an all-too-familiar sight.
Various options have been put to me to deal with the many issues that have been raised. As I said, many people in the taxi trade would bring minicabs up to the same standard as taxis. That would include introducing an abridged version of the knowledge, criminal record and medical checks for drivers and regular MOT checks for vehicles. The same system of fares regulation would apply. That would, arguably, give all users the same degree of safety.
However, can it be argued that all those stringent requirements are always necessary for many of the journeys that the minicab industry currently undertakes? I remind the House, and I know that there will be common agreement on this, that my most important responsibility is not to any individual interest group. It is not even ultimately to the licensed trade, which we all admire. My responsibility must ultimately be to the citizen as a consumer of services. I am not sure that consumers would

necessarily thank me for denying them the opportunity of the cheaper travel in perfectly acceptable conditions which is currently on offer in many places.
Another option, which my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North mentioned, is a two-tier system with separate licensing for minicabs which broadly reflects the system outside London. Like my hon. Friend, I have reservations about how that would work in the capital, given the stringency of the controls that are applied to licensed taxis. There would be a danger that two-tier licensing would pose a significant threat to the viability of the present licensed trade and would thus damage the very part of the taxi business that is agreed not to be the cause of the problem.
The answer must be to endeavour to put the interests of the public, especially those of vulnerable passengers, at the centre of our attention in a way that does not impact adversely on the licensed trade, which, by virtue of the time and effort that it has devoted to obtaining its unique right to apply for hire, has shown a sense of responsibility and an awareness of the importance of its task which is to be much admired.
I have not the slightest doubt of the inevitable unpopularity that will accompany whatever announcement I make. Before the hon. Member for Newham, North-West leaves, he would do well to contemplate that, in the unlikely event of his transferring to this side of the Chamber, making unpopular announcements is likely to be a feature of this job for many years to come. But I have no doubt that, in the circumstances, he would discharge it with great distinction and good humour, as he always does.
I want to make it clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North and to hon. Members who represent London constituencies that I will do my level best to incorporate the principles that I have outlined to ensure that the standards of the service in London are maintained.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at six minutes past Three o'clock.